Seeking the Center Place : Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region [1 ed.] 9781607817888, 9780874808544

Citation preview

Seeking the Center Place

Standing architecture on Cannonball Mesa with Sleeping Ute Mountain in the background. Photo copyright Bill Pround

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center

Seeking the Center Place Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde R.~gion _~.,,-__ -,_~ ""Or

Salt Lake City

© 2002 by The University of Utah Press

All rights reserved 07 06 05 04 03 02 5 4 3

2 1

The design element in the text is a digital image of a pottery bowl from Yellow Jacket Pueblo by Paul Ermigiotti and Ginnie Dunlop. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Seeking the center place: archaeology and ancient communities in the Mesa Verde region / edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen. p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-87480-735-2 (hardcover: alk. paper) 1. Sand Canyon Pueblo (Colo.). 2. Pueblo Indians-Antiquities. 3. Pueblo architecture-Colorado-Sand Canyon Pueblo. 4. Land settlement patterns-Colorado-Sand Canyon Pueblo. 5. Excavations (Archaeology)-Colorado-Sand Canyon Pueblo. 6. San Juan Basin (N.M. and Colo.)-Antiquities. 7. Mesa Verde National Park (Colo. )-Antiquities. I. Varien, Mark. II. Wilshusen, Richard H. E99·P9 S454 2002 978.8'27-dc21

2002006745

To Ian "Sandy" Thompson

Long ago in the north Lies the road of emergence! Yonder our ancestors live, Yonder we take our being Yet now we come southwards. For could flowers blossom here Here the lightning flashes, Rain water here is falling! -Traditional Tewa Song, translated in Spinden 1933

Contents Figures and Tables

viii

Acknowledgments

xi

Part 1. LOCALITIES, REGIONS, AND COMMUNITIES: Long-Term Research at Crow Canyon 1.

A Partnership for Understanding the Past: Crow Canyon Research in the Central Mesa Verde Region Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen 3

2.

The Ancestral Pueblo Community as Structure and Strategy 25 Michael A. Adler

3. Sand Canyon Pueblo: The Container in the Center

Scott G. Ortman and Bruce A. Bradley

41

Part 2. ENVIRONMENT AND POPULATION: The Foundation for Inquiry 4. Environment-Behavior Relationships in Southwestern Colorado

Jeffrey S. Dean and Carla R. Van West

81

5. Estimating Population in the Central Mesa Verde Region 101 Richard H. Wilshusen

Part 3. PLANTS AND ANIMALS: Subsistence and Sustainability 6. Sustainable Landscape: Thirteenth-Century Food and Fuel Use in the

Sand Canyon Locality Karen R. Adams and Vandy E. Bowyer

VI

123

vii

CONTENTS

7. Faunal Variation and Change in the Northern San Juan Region 143 Jonathan C. Driver

Part 4. PEOPLE AND THEIR COMMUNITIES: Movement, Interaction, Social Power, Conflict 8. Persistent Communities and Mobile Households: Population Movement in the Central Mesa Verde Region, A.D. 950 to 1290 Mark D. Varien 163 9. Measuring Community Interaction: Pueblo III Pottery Production and

Distribution in the Central Mesa Verde Region Christopher Pierce, Donna M. Glowacki, and Margaret M. Thurs 185 10. Social Power in the Central Mesa Verde Region, A.D. 1150-1290

William D. Lipe 11.

203

Thirteenth-Century Warfare in the Central Mesa Verde Region 233 Kristin A. Kuckelman

Part 5. COMMUNITY: The Past in the Present 12. Native American Perspectives on Sand Canyon Pueblo

and Other Ancestral Sites Ian Thompson 257 13. Concepts of Community in Archaeological Research Michelle Hegmon 263

References

281

Contributors Index

337

335

Figures and Tables FIGURES 1.1. Map of the Four Corners area 4 1.2. The Sand Canyon locality and surrounding area 5 1.3. Distribution of community centers A.D. 1050-1290 10 1.4. Community centers in the Woods Canyon community 11 2.1. Plan map ofYellow Jacket Pueblo 36 3.1. Plan map of Sand Canyon Pueblo 42 3.2. Comparison of relative artifact proportions, Sand Canyon Pueblo and Pueblo Alto 46 3.3. Plan map of the D-shaped building (Block 1500), Sand Canyon Pueblo 56 3.4. Tree-ring dates from the great kiva complex and D-shaped building, 57 Sand Canyon Pueblo (5 MT765) 3.5. Central kivas of the D-shaped building, initial floor features 59 3.6. Central kivas of the D-shaped building, final floor features 60 3.7. Plan map of the great kiva complex, Sand Canyon Pueblo 63 3.8. Vessel radius estimate distributions for white ware bowls and

corrugated jars, Sand Canyon locality sites 66 3.9. Percentage of white ware bowls with exterior band designs, Sand Canyon locality sites 69 3.10. Correspondences between pottery serving bowls and canyon-rim villages, central Mesa Verde region 77 4.1. Total regional tree-year precipitation, A.D. 900-1500 (SW Colorado) 86 86 4.2. Mean regional tree-year temperature, A.D. 900-1500 87 4.3. Regional June Palmer Drought Severity Indices, A.D. 900-1500 4.4. Annual and filtered Sand Canyon locality June Palmer Drought Severity 90 Indices, A.D. 900-1500 4.5. Filtered annual regional and Sand Canyon locality June Palmer Drought Severity Indices 91 4.6. Two-year storage simulation in kilograms of dried beans per acre 91 4.7. Comparison of Sand Canyon locality smoothed Palmer Drought Severity Indices and two-year storage simulation 92

viii

ix

FIGURES AND TABLES

4.8. Measures of low and high frequency environmental variability on the 93 southern Colorado Plateau 5.1. Drainage areas and selected archaeological surveys in the central Mesa 103 Verde region 5.2. Late PI and late PIlI villages in the central Mesa Verde region

104

5.3. Distribution of earliest cutting and latest tree-ring dates,

Mesa Verde sites

106

5.4. Population estimates for the central Mesa Verde region

116

5.5. Estimated population in known village centers, A.D. 800-1320

117

7.1. Northern San Juan region site clusters 144 7.2. Taxa in 101 found assemblages, northern San Juan region 152 7.3. Relative frequencies of lagomorphs, artiodactyls, and turkey 153 for 99 assemblages, northern San Juan region 7.4. Distribution of artiodactyl index values 155 7.5. Distribution of lagomorph index values 155 7.6. Distribution of turkey index values 156 7.7. Artiodactyl index plotted against lagomorph index 156 7.8. Distribution of carnivore index values 159 8.1. Best estimates and 80 percent confidence intervals 167 for total occupation span for Sand Canyon locality sites 169 8.2. Roof treatments by time period 8.3. Tree-ring cutting dates A.D. 1000-1290, Sand Canyon locality 170 8.4. Study area, central Mesa Verde region 172 8.5. Digital elevation model of the study area 172 8.6. Elevations between 5,550 and 7,500 ft, large and small community centers, and sites with tree-ring cutting dates 173 8.7. Community centers, A.D. 1050-1150, with cost-equivalent polygons and cost-equivalent catchments around each center 174 8.8. Community centers, A.D. 1150-1225, with cost-equivalent polygons

and cost-equivalent catchments around each center 175 8.9. Community centers, A.D. 1225-1290, with cost-equivalent polygons and cost-equivalent catchments around each center 176 8.10. Community centers, A.D. 1050-1150, and the nearest A.D.

1150-1225 centers

A.D.

1225-1290 centers

179 8.11. Community centers, A.D. 1150-1225, and the nearest 180

8.12. Community centers, A.D. 950 and 1290, used to define persistent

communities and the catchments around these centers

181

9.1. Sand Canyon locality sites from which materials were analyzed

188

9.2. Scatter plot correlation between direct evidence of pottery production

and a measure of the recovered sample size

193

9.3. Relative frequencies of three main temper classes in Mesa Verde

Black-on-white bowls from Sand Canyon sites

194

x

FIGURES AND TABLES

9.4. Percentage of Mesa Verde Black-on-white bowls with crushed igneous 196 rock temper in Sand Canyon locality assemblages 9.5. Principal components plot showing the separation of the four INAA

pottery compositional reference groups 197 9.6. Principal components plot showing four INAA pottery compositional subgroups with relation to clay sources

198

10.1. Large site distribution, central Mesa Verde region, A.D.

1150-1225

206

10.2. Large site distribution, central Mesa Verde region, A.D.

1225 and 1290

207

10.3. Rank-size distribution for large sites, A.D. 1150-1225

and 1225-1290

218

11.1. Plan map of Castle Rock Pueblo

235

TABLES 3.1. Artifact Counts by Architectural Block, Sand Canyon Pueblo 3.2. Tree-Ring Data from Sand Canyon Pueblo

3.3. Pottery Types in Well-Dated Assemblages, Sand Canyon Locality 5.1. Population Estimates for Wetherill Mesa (original)

111

5.2. Population Estimates for Wetherill Mesa (revised)

111

5.3. Population Estimates for Sand Canyon Locality 5.4. Population Estimates for Mockingbird Mesa

45

50 51

112 112

5.5. Population Estimates for Dolores 113 5.6. Population Densities for the Mesa Verde, Great Sage Plain, and Dolores Areas 114 126 6.1. Flotation Samples from Sand Canyon Locality Sites 128 6.2. Reproductive-Part Ubiquity within Flotation Samples 6.3. Charcoal- and Other-Vegetative-Part Ubiquity within 130 Flotation Samples 6.4. Resource Diversity as Total Number of Taxa Recovered 133 6.5. Rank Order and Percent of Commonly Recovered Resources 134 6.6. Two Major Groupings of Native Plants with Reproductive Parts 136 Preserved in Flotation Samples 7.1. Assemblages from the Northern San Juan Region 148 192 9.1. Direct Evidence of Pottery Production, Sand Canyon Sites 9.2. Movement of Mesa Verde Black-on-White Bowls among Possible Areas of Pottery Production 199 10.1. Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1150-1225 208 210 10.2. Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1225-1290 228 10.3. Exotic Materials and Ornaments Relative to Corrugated Sherds

Acknowledgments any people have enabled the research we present in this volume. Among the most important are the thousands who have participated in Crow Canyon research programs, conducting fieldwork, processing artifacts, and contributing to laboratory analyses. We are grateful for their hard work and inspired by their desire to learn. Research at Crow Canyon involves the collective efforts of all staff members, interns, and volunteers, far too many individuals to mention by name. We extend our heartfelt thanks to each of these friends and colleagues. We also thank members of the Crow Canyon Native American advisory group, who work with us to develop our research and education programs. We are indebted to the many individuals who have assisted the Center by becoming members, by contributing funds, and by working on fundraising benefits or other supporting activities. Without these many contributions of money and of time, we could not have undertaken the research or completed the reports and articles summarized in this volume. Peggy V. Fossett deserves special recognition for support that allowed the Center to establish a research publications program. We are grateful to the past and present members of the research committee who meet twice a year to review the direction of the research program. Finally, we deeply appreciate the leadership and generous support provided by past and current members of the Crow Canyon Board ofTrustees; Crow Canyon would not exist if not for the support of these individuals. Crow Canyon works in partnership with many other institutions. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the scores ofdedicated staff members at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Archaeological Conservancy, Mesa Verde National Park, the Colorado Historical Society, Fort Lewis College, and Amaterra. In particular we thank the following individuals: Sally Wisely, former San Juan Resource Area manager; Kristie Arrington of the BLM San Juan Public Lands Center; LouAnn Jacobson, Victoria Atkins, and Susan Thomas of the BLM Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and Anasazi Heritage Center; Shela McFarlin, former director of the Anasazi Heritage Center; Mark Michel and Jim Walker of The Archaeological Conservancy; Larry Nordby, Linda Towle, Robert Heyder, and Jack Smith at Mesa Verde National Park; Sue Collins of the Colorado Historical Society; Jim Judge and other members of the Fort Lewis College Department ofAnthropology and the Center of Southwest Studies; and Roger Irwin, director of Amaterra.

M

Xl

xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are indebted to the many private landowners who allowed us to conduct research at sites on their property. We especially thank Troy and Shorlene Oliver and their family; the late Roy and Lillian Retherford and their daughters, Glenna Harris and Guyrene McAfee; the late Catherine Stanley and her son, Stanton; Ziska Rogers; Margory Gai; Arthur and Esther Wilson and their children; Clem and James Honaker; the late Jack Hawkins; and the late Joe Tipton and his sons. Andrew Duff reviewed an early version of this manuscript, and his comments were used to produce the draft that was submitted to the University of Utah Press for review. Barbara Mills and David Breternitz reviewed the manuscript for the Press. Their detailed comments and suggestions were used to revise each chapter and edit the entire volume. They have our deepest respect; they deserve recognition for the volume's success but are not responsible for any shortcomings that remain. We are grateful to Neal Morris, Joshua Torres, Ginnie Dunlop, Cynthia Elsner, Stu Patterson, and the authors of each chapter for their work on the figures that appear in this volume. We are grateful to Paul Ermigiotti and Ginnie Dunlop for their work on the illustration used on the cover. Sandy Tradlener provided invaluable assistance in the production of the final manuscript. We are also indebted to Jeff Grathwohl and Rodger Reynolds at the University of Utah Press for their work on this volume. Finally, we would like to thank Joe Abbott, who did an excellent job as copy editor. Partial funding for this research came from a number of sources, including grants from the National Science Foundation, the State Historical Fund of the Colorado Historical Society, the National Geographic Society, the Colorado Digitization Project, the Colorado Endowment for the Humanities, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, the National Park Service, the Department of Defense (DOD) Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Graduate Support Office at Arizona State University (ASU), the ASU Department of Anthropology, the 67th Pecos Conference Kiln Auction, the Ballantine Family Fund, and the Alden C. Hayes Research Fund at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

Part 1 LOCALITIES, REGIONS, AND COMMUNITIES Long-Term Research at Crow Canyon

1 APartnership for Understanding the Past Crow Canyon Research in the Central Mesa Verde Region MARK D. VARIEN AND RICHARD H. WILSHUSEN

row Canyon Archaeological Center is a uniquely configured institution. From one point of view it is a research center with a staff of highly trained anthropological archaeologists. From another it is an experientially based school where instructors design and deliver educational programs about ancient and modern Native American cultures to students of all ages. From yet another perspective the Center is an institution devoted to working with Native Americans to study and teach about the past. This mixed configuration of academic research, public education, and Native American involvement has shaped the history of the Center's research and the kinds of studies that appear in this volume. In this introductory chapter we will describe the public archaeology program at Crow Canyon, present a short history of the Center's research, and review the goals of this volume. In the early 1970S Edward Berger, a high school teacher from Denver, established an experiential education center near Cortez, Colorado, that became known locally as the Crow Canyon School (Berger 1993). The school's educational mission included archaeology, history, and Native American culture, but it did not sponsor and fund research archaeology projects. In 1982 the school's campus in Crow Canyon was bought by the Center for American Archaeology (CAA) at Northwestern University, which had a research project and campus at Kampsville, Illinois. The Crow Canyon campus of CAA was established to deliver education and research programs similar to those that had been developed at Kampsville. Stuart Struever was president of CAA; Ed Berger served as the first executive director of CMs Crow Canyon campus; and Richard Ballantine, Jim Judge, Bill Lipe, Ian (Sandy) Thompson, and Bill Winkler served on a founding advisory committee. Struever's vision and the curriculum developed by the CAA staff at the Kampsville campus provided the foundation for programs that were initiated at the CAA campus at Crow Canyon.

C

3

M. D. VARIEN AND R. H. WILSHUSEN

4

Y E3

E3

KUometers

SO

UTAH --_.._h_··-··-AAiZONA-_··_n_.._.._n_n_.._.._.._n_n_.._..

Figure 1.1. The Four Corners area, showing the northern San Juan River drainage, the central Mesa Verde region, and the Sand Canyon locality. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

In January of 1985 the relationship with CAA was dissolved, and the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center became an independent nonprofit institution with its own board of trustees. Stuart Struever served as the Center's first president, Sandy Thompson as the executive director, and Raymond Duncan as the chairman of the board of trustees. Since the center's inception, many people have contributed to its development. Central to these programs is research that has been conducted throughout the central Mesa Verde region (Figure 1.1), with a focus on the Sand Canyon locality (Figure 1.2). During this period the Center has grown in size, refined its mission, and dramatically increased the number of people who learn about the past through its diverse set of programs. A part of the founding vision of the Center was a belief in the importance of ancient Native American history, a history that was-and to a large degree still is-excluded from classrooms across America. Those who started Crow Canyon knew that the public had a deep interest in this past. The Center began with a firm conviction that everybody's past matters and that the public has a right to participate in the process of uncovering our shared human history. Stuart Struever was adamant that multidisciplinary, long-term research was needed to achieve a better understanding of the past (Struever 1971), yet he also recognized that this would require much more research time and money. Public participation was seen as a way to both educate the public and provide the funding to maintain a long-term research program. Currently, about 60 percent of the Center's operating budget comes from tuition and fees paid by individuals for educational programs, including those that are based on research participation. About 30 percent of the funding comes from grants and private contributions, and about 10 percent comes from endowment earnings.

A PARTNERSHIP FOR UNDERSTANDING THE PAST

5

../ .r'" .r-J../

~

} j

H

H

5

I

Crow Cenyon Archuologlce' C8nter

• oH

IT

(

10 I

KILOMETERS

, I

10

J::~

CO

:c

E

Q)

en en

20

CO

a

Q)

0>

~ c:

10

Q)

~

Q)

a..

o -I---___....-.----r-1-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71-80

81-90

91-100

Percentage of cottontail

By using the indices defined previously, one can track changes through time in ratios of one taxon to another. Contrary to expectations from other areas of the Southwest (Speth and Scott 1989), artiodactyls do not become more common through time. As seen in Figure 7.4, many period F assemblages have low artiodactyl indices. Thus, the depression in artiodactyl percentages seen on Figure 7.3 is related not solely to the increase in turkey but also to a general decline in the abundance of artiodactyls relative to other wild animals. The lagomorph index, which measures relative frequency of cottontails in the lagomorph assemblage, also highlights period F as a time of change. As can

Figure 7.5. Distribution of lagomorph index values.

JONATHAN C. DRIVER

80

"0

• • •

0

.~

c..

60

o

.c C,,)

Period B Period C PeriodD Period F

~ Q)

.5 (J)

Q)

0> ~

40

::0 E Q) (J) (J)

ct:S

'0 Q)

0>

20

~

C Q) C,,)

CD

a..

0 0

Figure 7.6. Distribution of turkey index values.

1-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71-80

81-90 91-100

Percentage of turkey

80

Figure 7.7. Artiodactyl index plotted against lagomorph index for period F assemblages. Single letters refer to site clusters defined on Figure 1. NPV = Nancy Patterson Village (cluster D, Figure 7-1); MUG = Mug House (cluster K, Figure 7-1); SCP = Sand Canyon Pueblo (cluster H, Figure 7-1).

K• •H .M .M J.

60

•• 1

x

J

Q)

"0

.5

.L

>. 40 t3

ct:S "0

R.

0

:e «

R.

20

.R

-R

.R • R

0 0.2

0.4

0.6

•• 0.8

1.0

1.2

Lagomorph index

be seen from Figure 7.5, the lagomorph index is quite variable in Periods B, C, and D, but in Period F there is a pronounced change as the majority of assemblages shift toward a high cottontail:jackrabbit ratio. This change is contrary to what we would expect if larger human populations created more open spaces as a result of forest and brush clearance. Trends in the turkey index are illustrated in Figure 7.6. In periods Band C the turkey:lagomorph ratio tends to be low. In periods D and F there is a greater range of ratios, and more assemblages have high turkey values. This is in keeping with predictions that shortages of desired wild game (notably artiodactyls) will be offset by intensification of domestic turkey production (Speth and Scott 1989; Spielmann and Angstadt-Leto 1996). If the various indices discussed above are interrelated, we might expect to

FAUNAL VARIATION IN THE NORTHERN SAN JUAN REGION

find correlations among them. For all 101 sites there are no observable correlations between each pair of indices. No correlations can be observed when sites are divided by period. With one exception no clustering of sites can be observed when indices are plotted against each other; the usual pattern is random and unclustered. The only evidence for clustering is in period F (Pueblo III), when the artiodactyl index is plotted against the lagomorph index (Figure 7.7). Three clusters of sites can be defined. As noted previously, one group of sites in period F contains unusually high artiodactyl frequencies. These sites are mainly found on and around Mesa Verde itself and also have high lagomorph indices. A second cluster of sites is defined by low artiodactyl and low lagomorph indices. All of these sites are from locality R, along the La Plata River, where the natural vegetation would encourage high jackrabbit frequencies. The remaining Pueblo III sites form a third cluster defined by low artiodactyl indices and high lagomorph indices. Many of these sites are from the center of the region, north of McElmo Creek, and areas with densely clustered communities and high population density (Varien 1999). HYPOTHESES FOR FAUNAL VARIATION Looking at the northern San Juan region assemblages through time, there seems to be little difference between period B (Basketmaker III) and period C (Pueblo I). During period D (Pueblo II) turkey becomes more common. During period F (Pueblo III) turkey percentages remain high, the relative frequency of artiodactyls (principally deer) declines, and cottontails dominate jackrabbits more often and more thoroughly than in earlier periods. Assuming that overall regional human population increased through time, we would expect to see the following changes if predictions from other areas of the Southwest are correct: intensification of turkey production (reflected in a higher turkey index); 2. increased frequencies of jackrabbit (and hence a decrease in the lagomorph index) in response to the creation of more open areas resulting from deforestation for fuel and construction and from clearance of arable land; 3. increased use of artiodactyls (and hence an increase in the artiodactyl index) as long-range hunting became necessary to supply aggregated communities that had overhunted their immediate environment; 4. increased use of artiodactyls and jackrabbits as larger human populations expended more time on communal hunts. 1.

Only the first of these expectations is met in the northern San Juan region. In the earlier periods turkey indices are generally low. In later periods a greater range of indices occurs, and more assemblages have relatively high indices. This trend is also reflected in higher percentages of turkey in the total assemblage.

157

JONATHAN C. DRIVER

The second expectation is not met because jackrabbit declines in relation to cottontail in the last period over most of the region. Locality R (La Plata valley) is an exception to this trend, probably because the environment is much more open than other parts of the region, and jackrabbit was always available. Without the La Plata assemblages the trend would be much more pronounced. Although the decline in jackrabbit could be interpreted as an increase in brush and woodland, this seems unlikely. Human population density was almost certainly higher during period F than in earlier periods, and this must have had an influence on the regional woodland and brush cover. The third expectation is not met either-artiodactyl values and the artiodactyl index decline in period F. Although there is not a correlation between the decline in artiodactyls and the decline in jackrabbits, some consistent patterns emerge for some localities, notably Mesa Verde itself. Because the outcome of the fourth expectation is consistent with the second and third, it too has not been met for the reasons discussed above. I propose that the trends evident in the various indices can be explained as a result of increasing human population and a shift in subsistence strategies, primarily in Pueblo III times. As human populations increased, an early response was to start raising domestic turkey for meat, hence the increase in the turkey index in periods D and F. By period F human populations had increased to the point that deer were overhunted in the neighborhood of settlements, and deer habitat may have been somewhat affected by deforestation. Hunters could have undertaken longer hunting trips to secure deer with relative ease. For example, Lipe (199s:Figure 2) shows a significant concentration of human population north of McElmo Creek (localities G and H in this study). There was good deer habitat with little or no human population in the Dolores River valley, about 20 kIn north, and also on Ute Mountain, less than 15 kIn to the south, yet artiodactyls are uncommon at period F sites in localities G and H. The higher artiodactyl frequencies on and around Mesa Verde itself may result from the much closer proximity of human populations to relatively ((wild" canyons and mesas with little human occupation. It appears that in densely settled areas there was little exploitation of more distant habitats. There is some corroborating evidence to suggest that human exploitation of the ((wild" environment declined during the last century of human occupation in the northern San Juan region. The exploitation of carnivores also declined in period F. The ((carnivore index" is calculated by summing the frequency of all carnivores with the exception of the canids (because of the problems of dealing with domestic dogs), dividing by the sum of lagomorphs, artiodactyls, turkey, and carnivores, and converting to a percentage. Many sites contain no carnivores, but if assemblages with carnivore indices greater than 0 are plotted by period (Figure 7.8), it can be seen that assemblages from period F have very low carnivore indices. I suggest that this reflects the hunting out of game around habitation sites, combined with little hunting activity in areas that were empty of human settlement. A further reflection of the ((localness" of

FAUNAL VARIATION IN THE NORTHERN SAN JUAN REGION

159

80

"'0

o

.~

60

0J::.

• •

(.)

o

as Q)

Period Band C PeriodD PeriodF

.5 UJ

Q)

~ 40

:0 E Q) UJ UJ

as

'0 ~ 20

as C Q) (.)

CD

a.

o

0.1-1

1.1-2

2.1-3

3.1-4

4.1-5

5.1-6

6.1-7

7.1-8

8.1-9

9.1-10

>10

Carnivore index

the period F hunting activity is the fact that it is the only period for which reasonably well-defined spatial patterns of assemblage composition can be identified. As discussed above, localities on or near Mesa Verde have distinctive assemblage characteristics; the La Plata assemblages are distinct; and the remaining cluster consists of sites drawn mainly from the population middle portion of the central Mesa Verde region. In other periods such distinctions are not so readily observable, at least in the lagomorph, artiodactyl, and turkey data. This suggests that human hunting activities were confined to circumscribed areas and that local environmental differences affected the relative proportions of the common taxa. In the centuries preceding the decline of the northern San Juan communities there appear to be trends in the faunal data that may add to our understanding of the processes and histories of depopulation. At a local scale,

discussed briefly in the first part of this chapter and in more detail elsewhere (Driver 1996; Muir 1999b), we may be able to discern the effects on local economies of the densely aggregated settlements that appeared in Pueblo III times. At a broader scale, discussed in the remainder of the chapter, we can see trends that probably relate to increasing regional population density and a reduction in the local availability of some species. By Pueblo III times a significant number of assemblages are dominated by cottontails and turkey, both of which would have been produced within and around settlements. Duff and Wilshusen (2000) have proposed that the depopulation of the northern San Juan may have been less rapid than hypothesized previously. Even if this is correct, the almost universal lack of artiodactyls in Pueblo III assemblages can still be ascribed to human actions. If the decline in artiodactyl populations had occurred by the beginning ofthe thirteenth century A.D., then artiodactyl populations could have remained low, provided that there were

Figure 7.8. Distribution of carnivore index values.

160

JONATHAN C. DRIVER

enough people to maintain the hunting pressure on artiodactyl populations. The widespread lack of artiodactyls suggests that this was the case, although it would be interesting to investigate the possibility that Mesa Verde and nearby locations were less densely populated (or experienced depopulation earlier) than the area north of McElmo Creek. Finally, I believe it is worth developing some hypotheses about the social and ideological changes that may have been occurring during this period. For many reasons (nutrition, meat weight, fat, raw materials, religion, prestige) artiodactyls were probably the preferred game in this region. The decline in the availability of artiodactyls by Pueblo III times seems to be most obvious in areas where human settlements were well packed and where neighboring settlements formed a barrier or buffer between hunters and deer habitat. It is quite possible that deer became a more valued resource during this period and that individuals or groups controlled access to deer. We have some evidence of this at Sand Canyon Pueblo, but more studies of assemblages from large settlements are required. The reduced opportunities for deer hunting, the reduction in carnivore hunting, and the increased reliance on domestic turkey in many Pueblo III sites hint that people may have been less conscious of living in a "wild" environment and perhaps are telling us that far more attention was being focused on internal preoccupations. Settlement data from the center of the region demonstrate that individuals could live surrounded by other communities in an environment that must have been heavily altered by deforestation, farming, terracing, and possibly overhunting. If the late-thirteenth-century droughts made the humanly created environment a less reliable source of sustenance, were people capable of, or willing to, look further afield for alternative resources?

Part 4 PEOPLE AND THEIR COMMUNITIES Movement, Interaction, Social Power, Conflict

8 Persistent Communities and Mobile Households Population Movement in the Central Mesa Verde Region, A.D. 950 to 1290 MARK

D. VARIEN

he mobility of Puebloan societies in the ancient North American Southwest was a hot research topic during the 1980S; indeed, one pair of researchers dubbed it the "idea of the '80S" in southwestern archaeology (Whalen and Gilman 1990:71). This research attacked the conventional archaeological wisdom that held that ancient Puebloan groups were sedentary, living in one place for centuries. Since the 1980s, research has conclusively demonstrated that groups were much more mobile than previously recognized. Although this recent research has been remarkably productive, I argue that the debate over population movement in the Southwest has been misguided because it is couched in either/or terms: societies are argued to be either mobile or sedentary. This perspective fails to recognize a point made by Kelly (1992:60) when he observed that "no society is sedentary, ... [and 1people simply move in different ways." In addition, the theory and concepts for studying mobility have been developed almost exclusively through hunter-gatherer research. I believe models derived exclusively from hunter-gatherer research are inadequate for the study of sedentism and mobility in agricultural societies. I begin this chapter by reviewing how this hunter-gatherer paradigm has structured research on mobility in southwestern agricultural societies and attempt to show that this perspective has limited our understanding of population movement. This critique structures my research into sedentism and mobility in the central Mesa Verde region, which examines residential sites and the larger communities to which they belonged. I focus on a specific dimension of mobility strategies: the low frequency residential movement of households and the persistent occupation of localities by entire communities.

T

163

MARK D. VARIEN

SEDENTISM AND MOBILITY Inquiry into ancient Puebloan mobility has drawn on a theoretical and conceptual framework derived from hunter-gatherer studies, resulting in four general research trends. First, the temporal scale of this research usually focuses on seasonal movement. Second, the spatial and social scales typically examine small sites and small social groups. Third, environmental and ecological factors are emphasized in the interpretation of mobility patterns. Finally, sedentism and mobility are treated as either/or phenomena. Closer examination of these four trends shows how this perspective limits our understanding of ancient Puebloan mobility. Kelly (1983:277) defined hunter-gatherer mobility in a straightforward manner as "seasonal movements of hunter-gatherers across the landscape." Influenced by this perspective, most southwestern research has tried to determine whether site occupation was seasonal or year-round. The most widely used definition of sedentism views groups as being sedentary when at least part of the group lives at the residential site for the entire year (Kelly 1992:49; Plog 1990:180; Rafferty 1985:115; Rice 1975:97), which again shows the influence of this hunter-gatherer perspective. From this point of view only logistically organized, seasonal, mobility remains to be analyzed when seasonal residential movement ceases. This perspective provides no framework for studying the equally important, but less frequent, residential mobility of groups that move their residence on a supra-annual basis. This supra-annual residential mobility is the focus of the analyses that follow. The emphasis on seasonal movement has limited the spatial scale of most research to a focus on individual sites-typically small sites. Ecofacts, artifacts, architecture, site layout, and cross-cultural research have been used to evaluate the season of site occupation (Gilman 1987; Jewett and Lightfoot 1986; Kent 1991, 1992; Kent and Vierich 1989; Lightfoot and Jewett 1984; Plog 1986; Powell 1983; Rocek and Bar-Yosef 1998). The focus on small sites means that the social scale of the research is also limited, usually to examining the movement of households or small task groups. Occasionally, larger sites and community movements are examined and year-round occupation is acknowledged (Kintigh 1985; Nelson and Anyon 1996; Nelson and LeBlanc 1986). In these cases occupation is interpreted as "short-term sedentism;' where whole communities are seen as moving in response to resource depletion (Nelson and Anyon 1996) or factional disputes (Kintigh 1985). Short-term sedentism has replaced long-term sedentism as the conventional wisdom when characterizing most ancient societies that occupied the Southwest (Lekson 1990, 1996). The unfortunate result of this perspective is that ancient communities are rarely seen as having long-term developmental histories, and historical interpretation is not emphasized in the explanation of why mobility strategies and settlement patterns change. In addition, household residential mobility and community persistence are not separated and examined as analytically distinct problems.

PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES AND MOBILE HOUSEHOLDS

Another issue is that hunter-gatherer mobility studies, in their effort to understand seasonal movement, focus largely on the ecological determinants of mobility. In exemplary studies Kelly (1983) and Binford (1980) documented how the general structure ofthe environment affects hunter-gatherer mobility. Studies of southwestern mobility have also focused on climatic change and resource depletion as the most important stimuli to mobility (Carmichael 1990; Kohler 1992; Kohler and Matthews 1988; Lekson 1993, 1996; Plog 1986; Schlanger 1988; Schlanger and Wilshusen 1993). These studies have neglected the social factors that influence mobility. Weissner (1982) emphasized a similar point in her comment on Binford's (1980) article "Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails" when she argued that we must consider the social relations of production to fully understand the organization of hunter-gatherer mobility. I conclude that adequately modeling sedentism and mobility requires an understanding of both environmental factors and how they relate to the subsistence economy and social factors. We cannot decipher residential settlement patterns and mobility during the Puebloan occupation of the central Mesa Verde region without considering subsistence, especially the agrarian ecology of the region. To understand the subsistence economy and agricultural production, we must understand the environment. However, a full understanding of the subsistence economy also requires consideration of the social relations of production. Therefore, residential mobility and the resulting settlement patterns must be examined in a social as well as an environmental context. I see two dimensions to incorporating social factors into models of ancient mobility. First, social factors themselves can be the proximate cause of population movement (Kelly 1992:48). Second, regardless of the cause, all population movement takes place in a social context. Finally, debate has focused largely on whether societies were sedentary or mobile or on whether particular types of subsistence economies were or were not associated with sedentism or mobility. In the most useful studies this either/or dichotomy is replaced with models that treat mobility as a continuous variable and sedentism as a threshold property (Eder 1984; Kelly 1992; Rocek 1998). Again, the most commonly cited threshold for sedentism is when at least part of the group remains at the residential site throughout the year. But viewing sedentism as a threshold property is also problematic because there is no framework for comparing the relative sedentariness of groups that have crossed the arbitrary threshold for sedentism. I propose that we address these problems by recognizing that (1) all human societies are mobile, (2) that this mobility is multidimensional, and (3) that a society can be described as being increasingly sedentary as the frequency of its residential moves decreases. Thus, I see both mobility and sedentism as being continuous variables, but whereas mobility is multidimensional, sedentism varies along a single dimension: the frequency of residential movement. This critique also suggests that the social scale of our research must be expanded to include households, communities, and regional settlement systems. Similarly, the spatial scale must be expanded to include individual sites,

165

MARK D. VARIEN

166

localities that are the immediate sustaining areas for communities, and entire regions encompassing numerous localities. Finally, we need to model mobility as a social process by identifying the social determinants of mobility and by recognizing that all decisions to move or stay put are conditioned by the social context in which they occur. The central Mesa Verde region provides an excellent case study for developing these analyses. I begin my examination of residential mobility in this area by measuring the frequency of household movement. Next I document the length of time that communities occupied their sustaining localities. Finally, I reconstruct the social context in which household movement and community persistence occurred, and I identify the most persistently occupied communities in the central Mesa Verde region. HOUSEHOLD RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY My case study focuses on the central Mesa Verde region in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah (see Figure 1.1). I evaluate the frequency of household residential mobility by quantifying the accumulation of cooking pottery at residential sites and using these data to estimate the length of time each site was occupied (cf. Nelson et al.1994). I've detailed these methods elsewhere (Varien 1997a, 1999; Varien, ed. 1999; Varien and Mills 1997; Varien and Potter 1997) and present only a general outline of the study and the results here. Thirteen sites were tested as a part of the Sand Canyon Archaeological Project Site Testing Program (Varien, ed. 1999). Site size ranges from six sites with a single kiva to a single site with 16 kivas; site location includes several sites that are situated on the fertile uplands and several located within Sand Canyon

(see Varien 1999:Figure 5.1, Table 5.1). The sites were selected for testing because the main period of occupation dates between A.D. 1190 and 1290, although earlier habitation components were identified at several sites (Varien, ed. 1999). Each site was tested using a stratified random sample. These samples were used to calculate point estimates and confidence intervals for the total amount of corrugated cooking potsherds at each site. Cooking pots are ideal for this study because they were used on a regular basis, which resulted in repeated thermal stress (Pierce 1999; Varien 1997, 1999). Thermal stress depleted the vessel's strength, resulting in breakage and discard at a relatively regular rate. Thus, there is a straightforward relationship among the total discard of cooking potsherds at a site, the number of people living at a site, and the length of time the site was occupied (Varien and Mills 1997). To control for differences in site size, I divide the point estimates of total corrugated cooking potsherds by the number ofkivas at that site. I interpret kivas as the central facility for a household; therefore, these estimates represent the total discard of corrugated sherds per household at each site (Varien 1999: 93-96).

PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES AND MOBILE HOUSEHOLDS

120 110 100

gO U')

.

80

~

ro

l1)

70

0

60

>~

Q.)

.0

E

50

::J

Z

40 30

20 10

0

4i

S 0

I-

en 0

0 "t:! I'Q

~

Q,I

~

.... 0

~ £

I-

0:: Q,I

E I'Q

:I:

"0

~

0:: o1J

~ :I:

"0 C I'Q

Q,I

E I'Q

:I: C

0 ~

:0

~

U)

a. c

~

0

Q,I

:0

(j)

::J

'.I' ~ill

Q,I

a.

Ql

-n

"N

a:

C

o1J

0

~

0

~ I'Q u

"-

-J

~ i;j) VI

~

:J

e: ~

0

:I:

-; 0 .:% 0 0

-J

~ (j) VI -Q,I

0=

;U

~

U

0;c a:

~ a:

ill

Q,I

Ui

(j)

VI -ill

-c

S

oS

0

en

oN

~

0

J::. (J)

III

~

0:: C I'Q

ill

c QI

'.'

I use a strong archaeological case to translate these estimates of total dis-

card per household into estimates of site occupation span and hence the frequency of residential movement. By a strong archaeological case I mean a site where the total discard, the length of site occupation, and the size of the site population are known or can be accurately estimated. The Duckfoot site provides such a strong case (Lightfoot 1994; Lightfoot and Etzkorn 1993), and data from Duckfoot were used to obtain an annual rate of cooking potsherd accumulation per household (Varien 1999:73-88; Varien and Mills 1997). This annual rate is then divided into the estimates of total discard per household for each of the tested sites, producing the household occupation span estimates for each site (Varien 1999:89-96). Contextual evidence is evaluated to provide the best estimate of the total site occupation span at sites with multiple households (Varien 1999:96-111). Figure 8.1 illustrates the best estimates and confidence intervals for the length of occupation for 15 components at the 13 tested sites. For the purpose of this chapter I emphasize two aspects of these data: the variation in the estimates and the change in occupation span through time. There is substantial variation in occupation span and, by extension, household residential mobility. The two sites with the shortest occupation span, Mad Dog Tower and Troy's Tower, are the only two sites that may not be habitations (Varien, ed. 1999). These sites have a kiva, a masonry tower, and an associated midden but lack the masonry room blocks that are found at the other residential sites. At the remaining habitations, occupation span point estimates range from 16 to

Figure 8.1. Best estimates and 80 percent confidence intervals for total occupation span for Sand Canyon locality tested sites. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

168

MARK D. VARIEN

75 years. Even the low end of the confidence intervals-a range of 14 to 55 years-shows that occupation duration was lengthy but variable. Variation is present at sites where occupation dates to roughly the same period, but there is also a temporal pattern to the variation. Most of the habitation components date between A.D. 1190 and 1290, but there are two earlier habitations dating between 1060 and 1100. The two earlier habitations have occupation spans limited to a single generation. Most, but not all, of the later lasted two and sometimes three generations. The sample of earlier habitations is small, but the inference that occupation span was limited to a single generation at most sites dating before 1100 is supported by architectural data (Varien 1999; Varien, ed. 1999). The buildings at the earlier residential sites were constructed of timbers and earth, and cross-cultural and archaeological studies have demonstrated that there is an upper limit of 25 to 30 years for the use life of earthen structures (Ahlstrom 1985:83-84; Cameron 1990; Diehl 1992; McIntosh 1974; Schlanger 1987:586). In the central Mesa Verde region the change from earthen to masonry buildings happens between A.D. 1050 and 1150. Thus, the pattern documented for the Sand Canyon locality sites may be part ofa regionwide trend: earlier residential sites constructed with earthen architecture are limited to single-generation occupations, but later masonry residential sites often had occupations that lasted two or more generations.

COMMUNITY PERSISTENCE To place this household movement in a larger social context, I analyze community persistence by examining how long communities continuously occupied their sustaining localities. I focus on the Sand Canyon locality, where two communities have been identified, the Sand Canyon and Goodman Point communities (Adler 1990, 1994; Adler and Varien 1994). These communities are defined on the presence of settlement clusters, densely settled community centers, and public architecture within these centers (Adler and Varien 1994). I examine community persistence by analyzing abandonment processes at structures and sites and by documenting tree harvesting in the Sand Canyon locality. I begin by examining how structures and sites were abandoned; this analysis focuses on what happened to kiva and pit-structure roofs. Fifty-seven pit structures were entirely or partially excavated as a part of the Sand Canyon Archaeological Project; 51 ofthese were masonry-lined kivas. Stratigraphic analysis indicates the roofs were treated in four ways when use of these structures ceased: (1) all roof timbers were salvaged; (2) large roof timbers were salvaged, but smaller timbers were burned; (3) all timbers were left behind, and the entire roof was burned; and (4) roof timbers were left behind, and the entire unburned roof was left to rot in place. I assume that timbers were salvaged for future use when structures and the

PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES AND MOBILE HOUSEHOLDS

40 Roof Treatment

35

Burned Intact Roof

I

I

Burned/Salvaged Roof

IIIII111 Unburned/Salvaged

30

1)0//11

Unburned/Unsalvaged

U~~~~~~~~1~t1~1~1~i~~~~tJ Unknown en CD en as

25

0

..

'0

20

CD

.Q

E

:s

z

15 10 5

I A.D. 1060-1090

II A.D. 1140-1240

III A.D. 1225-1260

IV A.D. 1250-1290

Period

site were deserted as part of a short-distance move to the next occupied site. Thus, salvaging timbers is evidence that the locality remained occupied. On the other hand, leaving timbers behind is interpreted as evidence that there was a long-distance move out of the locality to the next occupied site. Following these assumptions, cases 1 and 2 are evidence that the locality remained occupied after specific sites and structures were deserted. In contrast, cases 3 and 4 are evidence that the locality was depopulated at the same time the structure and site were left behind. Each of 57 structures was assigned to one of four periods: A.D. 1060-1190; A.D. 1140-1240; A.D. 1225-1260; and structures constructed after A.D. 1250. The changing frequency of these roof treatments is illustrated in Figure 8.2. These data show that roof timbers were almost always salvaged from structures dating between 1060 and 1260 but that roof timbers were increasingly left behind in structures built after A.D. 1250. These later structures were being deserted at the same time that people were migrating from the region, producing a longdistance move to the next occupied site. The salvaging of most roof timbers in

Figure 8.2. Roof treatments by period. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

MARK D. VARIEN

120 . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

110 100 90

Ul

~ o

a ~

E

:::l

80

70 60 50

Z 40 30

Figure 8.3. Histogram showing the tree-ring cutting dates between A.D. 1000 and 1290 in the Sand Canyon locality. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

20

10

o i,.-.........:p-,........~:L..rJl,_J::;:J=;p:;:!:1=pLTJ....,t.AI""'i .............~ 1005 1025 1045 1065 1085 1105 1125 1145 1165 1165 1205 1225 1245 1265 1265 1015 1035 1055 1075 1095 1115 1135 1155 1175 1195 1215 1235 1255 1275

Interval Midpoint Year, A.D.

the earlier periods suggests that there was a short-distance move between the site that was deserted and the next occupied site. This analysis of roof treatment can be interpreted as evidence for continuity of occupation in the locality for more than 200 years. Next, I follow the methods used by Schlanger and Wilshusen (1993) and examine over 1000 tree-ring dates obtained from excavations in the Sand Canyon locality, including the thirteen tested sites (Varien 1999), Sand Canyon Pueblo (Bradley 1992a, 1993) and Green Lizard (Huber and Lipe 1992). As noted above, there is stratigraphic evidence that roof beams were often salvaged from structures. I assume that these beams were not transported over long distances and that most were reused within the Sand Canyon locality. Thus, I examine all treering dates as a means ofassessing continuity or discontinuity in the occupation of the locality. Harvesting of trees on a continuous basis is seen as evidence for continuity in the occupation ofthe locality. Conversely, discontinuous harvesting of trees is evidence that the locality was periodically depopulated. Figure 8.3 shows a histogram of tree-ring specimens from the Sand Canyon locality sites that yielded cutting dates-a total of 427 dated specimens. These data indicate that a substantial number of trees were harvested almost continuously between 1170 and 1280; there was discontinuous harvesting of timber between 1025 and 1170. These data indicate that the Sand Canyon community was occupied for at least a century, perhaps much longer. This estimate should be considered conservative because our sample is biased by the fact that the Sand Canyon Archaeological Project focused on sites that dated between 1180

PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES AND MOBILE HOUSEHOLDS

and 1290. To compare Sand Canyon locality data to other areas where many sites have been excavated, I also looked at cutting dates from Wetherill and Chapin mesas in Mesa Verde National Park (Varien 1997a:156- 163, 1999:126136, Figures 6.6-6.8). In these areas there is an almost continuous distribution between A.D. 1000 and 1280, indicating the nearly continuous occupation of Chapin and Wetherill mesas for at least three centuries. Together these analyses demonstrate that household mobility and community persistence occurred at different temporal scales. Households moved at frequencies ranging between one and three generations, but communities had histories that often spanned centuries.

THE REGIONAL SOCIAL LANDSCAPE To interpret these patterns of household residential mobility and community persistence, I reconstruct the regional social landscape in which all population movement occurred. This reconstruction is developed using three data sets. The first is termed the ((community center" database for the central Mesa Verde region (Varien 1999; Varien et al. 1996). Community centers are concentrations of residential settlement that often contain public architecture. An inventory of community centers has been compiled by a number of Crow Canyon archaeologists in collaboration with many other archaeologists working in the central Mesa Verde region (Varien et al. 1996; see also Varien 1997a, 1999). Tree-ring dates, pottery, and architecture are used to place these community centers into one of four periods: A.D. 950-1050, A.D. 1050-1150, A.D. 1150-1225, and A.D. 1225-1290 (Varien 1999:141-143). The second data set I use includes every cutting date from the central Mesa Verde region, which I compiled from records at the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research in Tucson. Finally, I use the rugged terrain of the region as data. The region is characterized by large changes in elevation, from mountains that rise above 13,000 £1, to nearly level uplands at lower elevations. These uplands are incised by deep canyons that drain south to the San Juan River, where the lowest elevations in the study area are found. Figure 8.4 shows the location of my study area, which is approximately the same as the central Mesa Verde region. I began the analysis of the study area by piecing together a digital elevation model, or DEM, for the study area. Figure 8.5 illustrates this DEM draped with a hillshade image where the darkest colors are the lowest elevations and progressively lighter colors are higher elevations; landforms mentioned in this chapter are labeled. I begin by analyzing how elevation affected the subsistence economy and the location of residential settlement. Next, I turned the DEM into a friction surface in which every 30-m cell has a value for the energy required to walk over that surface (this procedure is described in detail in Varien 1997a: Appendix B). I use this friction surface to analyze the distribution of community centers for each period, calculating the cost of moving out from each of the centers on foot. This procedure was used to create

171

MARK D. VARIEN

172

Monticello

Abajo Mountains",:'"

KEY

\~

Town Major physiographic feature

Cedar Mesa

Dove Creek

\0

" I;;;

\0

N

\0

Blanding

(,

"o ~

o

'0.

\

.

~

7,500 II (2,286 m)

Figure 8.6. A digital elevation model showing the elevations between 5,550 and 7,500 ft, along with the large and small community centers and all sites with tree-ring cutting dates. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

I formatted the DEM so that all elevations below 5,500 ft (1,676 m) are shown in black and elevations above 7,500-ft (2,286 m) are shown in white; elevations between 5,500 and 7,500 ft are shown in gray. This illustrates how the elevations between the 5,500- and 7,500-ft elevational band are restricted to an area that arcs across the region from the southeast to the northwest. To examine the relationship between elevation and settlement, I plot the location of all community centers occupied between A.D. 950 and 1290 and every site with a tree-ring cutting date between A.D. 600 and 1290. The community centers are divided into two size categories: those with fewer than 250 structures and those with more than 250 structures. Figure 8.6 illustrates how closely the distribution of the community centers and smaller tree-ring dated sites corresponds to the 5,500-7,500 ft elevations. In the few cases where centers or smaller sites are located outside this zone, they are usually near permanentwater. Length of the growing season and the amount of precipitation are two factors critical to agricultural production; agriculture benefits from a longer growing season and from more precipitation. Unfortunately for the ancient farmers in the central Mesa Verde region, elevation affects growing season and precipitation in opposite ways. Higher elevations result in more precipitation but shorter growing seasons; lower elevations have less precipitation but longer growing seasons. In the central Mesa Verde region, elevations between 5,500 and 7,500 ft provide the optimal balance between precipitation and growing season.

MARK D. VARIEN

174

a lIB N N N

o

Community Conte" Cost Polvgons 18 km Coot Cotchments

D N

7 km Coot Catchments 2 km Cost Catchments

Figure 8.7. Community centers in the A.D. 1050-1150 period, showing the cost-equivalent polygons and cost equivalent 2-, 7-, and 18-km catchments around each center. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

The quality of the soils also affects agricultural production, and the best arable soils also lie in the 5,500-7,500-£1 elevational band (Van West 1994). In the historic period the most productive farms are found in the area between McElmo and Montezuma Canyons. This area has sustained the most productive dryland agriculture since homesteading began in the first decades of the twentieth century. Examination of the distribution of community centers shows that the highest concentration of centers-and the highest concentration of the largest centers-is in this area (Figure 8.6). This can be interpreted as further evidence that the environment and agricultural production heavily influenced ancient settlement patterns and the development of the social landscape of the central Mesa Verde region. In ancient times residential mobility was the way that people gained access to productive resources. In the case of agricultural production the two most important productive resources are land and labor. Gaining access to both productive agricultural land and social resources, including the labor of others, was by necessity a consideration in every residential move. The environment structured agricultural production, which in turn affected the formation of the central Mesa Verde region social landscape. This was the landscape in which decisions about residential movement were made.

PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES AND MOBILE HOUSEHOLDS

II

l1l'i N /\1 /'V

Community Centers

o

Cost Polygons 18 km Cost Cotchments

175

6 N

7 km Cost Cstchments 2 km COlt Cltchmentl

Figure 8.8. Community centers in the A.D. 1150-1225 period, showing the cost-equivalent polygons and cost equivalent 2-, 7-, and 18-km catchments around each center. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

COMMUNITY POLYGONS AND CATCHMENTS In this section I examine how the social landscape in the central Mesa Verde region changed through time (Figures 8.7, 8.8, and 8.9). I construct costequivalent polygons around the community centers to illustrate how the dramatic physiography of the region shaped the social landscape. The polygon boundaries enclose the area that would be closest to each community center based on the cost of traveling out from each center over the surrounding terrain on foot. I also illustrate the 2-, 7-, and 18-kIn cost-equivalent catchments surrounding each of the community centers. Again, the catchments are not linear kilometers but take into account the cost of walking over the variable and often rugged terrain. I selected 2-, 7-, and 18-kIn catchments after reviewing the cross-cultural literature on how travel time affects resource procurement and land use. These studies include Chisholm's (1970:131) classic study ofland use, Stone's (1991:347,1992:166) detailed analysis of agricultural movement among Kofyar farmers, and a number of other studies that examine the relationship between distance, use, and acquisition of resources (Arnold 1985:32-34, 51-56; Bradfield 1971:21; Roper 1979:120). Based on this literature review, I interpret

MARK D. VARIEN

a

m N

O~~~10iiiiiiiiiiiiii20~~~35iOiiiiiiiiiiiiii4~O ~~50

Community Centers

Kllom eters

Cost Polygons 18 km Cost Catchments

N

7 km Cost Catchments

N

2 km Cost Cotchments

Figure 8.9. Community centers in the A.D. 1225-1290 period, showing the cost-equivalent polygons and cost equivalent 2-, 7-, and 18-km catchments around each center. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

the 2-km zone as the area of regular face-to-face interaction and most intensive agriculture. The 2-to-7-km zone is the sustaining area where wild food resources and nonfood resources were collected on a regular basis and is an area of less intensively cultivated fields. Finally, 18 km represents the one-day, round-trip walking distance from each of the sites (Drennan 1984; Wilcox 1996).

Examination of the 2-km cost-equivalent catchments around each of the community centers illustrates the zone of regular interaction and the approximate area occupied by the residential communities associated with each center. Inspection of these 2-km catchments in each successive period shows the changing distribution of communities over time. The 7-km catchments show the zones of regular resource use that surround these residential communities. The potential for escalating competition for resources is illustrated by the increasing overlap of the 2- and 7-km zones of neighboring communities in each successive period. This overlap also illustrates how neighboring communities form multiple community clusters. Examination of the 18- km catchments reveals the potential for interaction between communities across the landscape. Finally, these figures illustrate the degree to which there were buffer zones surrounding a community center or group of community centers and the degree

PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES AND MOBILE HOUSEHOLDS

to which the large-site communities of the central Mesa Verde region became increasingly isolated from large sites in adjacent regions. There are only two known community centers in the A.D. 950 to 1050 period, two small sites with great kivas. I don't illustrate these here because there are only two centers (but see Varien 1999:Figure 7.6). It is clear that population density is relatively low and that residential communities were small during this period (Varien 1999:145-146, 166, 170, 174-175, 190-191). There are 37 community centers in the A.D. 1050 to 1150 period (Figure 8.7). This is the period when the Chacoan regional system expanded into the northern San Juan region. The nature of the interaction between the Chaco and Mesa Verde areas remains unclear, but many of the community centers in the central Mesa Verde region have been interpreted as Chacoan outliers (Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al. 1983; Varien 1999; Varien et al. 1996). Figure 8.7 clearly shows how the boundaries of cost polygons and cost catchments are affected by the major topographic features in the regionsomething that becomes more pronounced in the periods that follow. Polygon boundaries in the western portion of the study area are shaped by Comb Ridge-which rises 1000 ft above Comb Wash-and by other canyons that run north-south. A series of northeast-to-southwest oriented canyons shape polygon boundaries in the area between Montezuma Canyon and McElmo Creek, including several polygon boundaries that run down the bottom of these canyons. South of McElmo Creek, Ute Mountain affects the boundaries of the surrounding community centers, and the 1,700-ft-high northern escarpment of Mesa Verde also contributes to the shape of the polygons in this area. Of the A.D. 1050 to 1150 community centers, 47 percent have polygons whose boundaries are defined by the polygons of other large sites nearby, whereas the polygons of53 percent of the community centers have one or more boundaries defined by the edge of the study area. The community centers of this period are more evenly spaced when compared to the distribution of community centers in the periods that follow. Yet even in this period community

centers are most densely clustered in an axis that runs southeast to northwest, stretching from Mesa Verde on the south to Squaw Mesa to the west. This area roughly corresponds to what is the best farmland in the region today. As noted above, it is likely that the concentration of communities in this area is a result of its agricultural potential. There is almost no overlap in the 2-km cost catchments during this period, the exceptions being the Lakeview group, the Dolores group, and the Lowry group, where there are three community centers within a single, overlapping 2Ian catchment. In the central Mesa Verde region the 7- Ian catchments begin to overlap, but the community centers are relatively evenly spaced and the amount of overlap is limited. Examination of the 18-km catchments shows the connectedness of the central Mesa Verde region settlement system and the potential connection to settlements in adjacent regions.

177

MARK D. VARIEN

The next figure illustrates the polygons and catchments for the 44 known community centers occupied between A.D. 1150 and 1225 (Figure 8.8). The percentage of these community centers that have polygons whose boundaries are defined by adjacent centers rises to 70 percent. The increased clustering of the centers produces smaller polygons and catchments, especially in the area between Yellow Jacket Creek and Montezuma Canyon. There is still little overlap between adjacent 2-km catchments; the exceptions are the Sand Canyon and Goodman Point communities in the Sand Canyon locality and adjacent communities in the Lowry area. There is, however, much greater overlap of the 7km catchments in this period, particularly in the middle portion of the central Mesa Verde region. The area defined by the 18-km catchments actually gets smaller during this period because community centers located on the edges of the study area in the previous period were depopulated (Varien 1999:171, Table 7.6). There are 59 community centers in the final period, A.D. 1225 to 1290; these centers and their associated polygons and catchments are shown in Figure 8.9. Settlement aggregation is at its peak in this period, and these centers are all aggregated villages. Of the polygons, 78 percent have boundaries defined by surrounding villages. There is a clear cluster on Mesa Verde proper, which includes 13 sites with more than 50 rooms. A large space separates this Mesa Verde cluster from the concentration of large villages north of McElmo Creek. A total of 36 villages are located in the area that stretches north from McElmo Creek to Alkali Ridge in southeastern Utah on the west. Physiography is clearly important in defining many of the polygon and catchment boundaries in this period. The north rim of Mesa Verde forms a boundary between the communities in Mesa Verde National Park and those located northwest of the park. Sleeping Ute Mountain separates the community

centers south of it from those to the north. Many of the polygon boundaries between McElmo Creek and Squaw Mesa follow the northeast-to-southwest trending canyons in this area, and north-south trending canyons shape polygon boundaries further west, in southeastern Utah. Finally, the polygon boundary on the west edge of the study area runs along Comb Ridge. These boundaries suggest that major physiographic features played an important role in shaping interaction and the social landscape in the central Mesa Verde region. Examination of the catchments illustrates that settlement clustering increases in this period. There is considerable overlap in the 2-km catchments, both on Mesa Verde proper and in the middle portion of the central Mesa Verde region. The same is true for the 7-km catchments. In fact, the total area within the 2-to-7-km zone actually decreases in the A.D. 1225 to 1290 period (see Varien I999:Table 7.6). Finally, the area within the I8-km zone constricts even further. Comparing Figures 8.7 through 8.9 reveals two important changes in the central Mesa Verde region social landscape between A.D. 1050 and 1290. First,

PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES AND MOBILE HOUSEHOLDS

o

10

20

179

30

40

50 Kllomete ..

·~~iiiiiiiiil!!~i;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~!!!!!'!'li

. . 1050·1160 Cente.. • 1150-1226 CentereoN • .,nt Nelghbo..

6 N

Figure 8.10. Community centers in the A.D. 1050-1150 period and the A.D. 1150-1225 centers that are their nearest neighbors. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

these community centers became more tightly spaced in the middle portion of the central Mesa Verde region through time; there would have been greater competition for resources in this area. Second, as a whole, the area occupied by the large-site communities of the central Mesa Verde region constricts in size through time. As a result, this large site settlement system became increasingly isolated from large-site communities in the surrounding regions. COMMUNITY PERSISTENCE Next, I measure the cost-equivalent distance between community centers that are nearest neighbors in successive periods. I assume there was some continuity in community organization when the distance between centers was less than 2 krn and that continuity is probable, but not as clear, when the distance was between 2 and 7 krn. When the distance was greater than 7 krn, community continuity is uncertain. In these cases one possibility is that communities persisted through time but that community members, or segments of communities, migrated beyond the 7-krn distance to settle new, empty localities. Another possibility is that the community dissolved and that households or larger segments of the community migrated and became members of other preexisting communities, either within the central Mesa Verde region or outside the

MARK D. VARIEN

180

o

10

20

30

40

. . 1150-1225 Centers •

1225-1290 CentersoNearest Neighbors

Figure 8.11. Community centers in the A.D. 1150-1225 period and the A.D. 1225-1290 centers that are their nearest neighbors. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

region. Finally, it is also possible that the community remained in the same location but that community organization changed. That is, residential communities remained in the vicinity of the deserted community centers, but these communities no longer had a center that was larger than 50 rooms. Figure 8.10 illustrates all A.D. 1050 to 1150 community centers and the A.D. 1150 to 1225 centers that are nearest neighbors within a 7-km cost-equivalent distance. The distance between community centers in these two periods ranges considerably, from several cases where the distance was less than 100 m to a maximum distance of 45.6 cost-equivalent km (Varien 1999:181-184). Of the A.D. 1050 to 1150 community centers, 30 percent are within 2 km of an 1150 to 1225 center, suggesting that continuity of community occupation was likely. Seventeen percent are within the 7-km range, a moderate distance where community continuity is still considered probable. Fifty-three percent of the A.D. 1050 to 1150 community centers had nearest neighbors in the subsequent period at a distance greater than 7 km. The figure shows that the distance between centers in successive periods was shortest in the middle portion of the central Mesa Verde region-the area of the best agricultural land-and longest on the margins of the study area. Figure 8.11 illustrates the A.D. 1150 to 1225 community centers and the 1225 to 1290 centers that are nearest neighbors within a 7-km cost-equivalent distance. The distances between centers in these two periods were shorter: 39 per-

181

PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES AND MOBILE HOUSEHOLDS

N N

Persiltent7-km Catchments

O~~1.ili0iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii20~~35iOiiiiiiiiiiiiii40~!!!!,!!60. Kilometers

Persistent 2-km Catchments

D N

Persl.tent Communities •

Community Center950-1050 Community Center 1050-1150

Comm unity Center 1150-1225 ()

Community Center 1225-1290

Figure 8.12. Location of the community centers that date between A.D. 950 and 1290 that are used to define persistent com' munities and the 2- and 7-km cost catchments around these centers. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

cent are within 2 cost-equivalent km of one another, 18 percent are within 7 cost-equivalent km, and 43 percent are more than 7 cost-equivalent km. The shortest distances continue to be in the middle portion of the central Mesa Verde region, with longer distances between centers in the area surrounding this densely settled zone. The depopulation of the eastern edge of the central Mesa Verde region that began in the earlier period continued in the 1200S. IDENTIFYING PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES These data can be used to identify the most persistently and intensively occupied places within the central Mesa Verde region. I argue that there was continuity in community organization at these persistently occupied places and that these were the communities with the longest histories of any in the region. It is possible, however, that these were areas that were persistently used but where there was no continuity in community organization (ef. Schlanger 1992). Instead, the area may have been used repeatedly by a succession of unrelated groups. This is an empirical question that can only be resolved by reconstructing in detail the histories of individual communities. Archaeologists at Crow Canyon are currently addressing this question through excavations in the Goodman Point and Woods Canyon communities. I have identified persistent communities by grouping community centers

MARK D. VARIEN

182

where the distance between centers in successive periods was less than 7 km; however, I have included a few cases where the distance was just above this 7km threshold (Varien 1999:202-207). Following this procedure, I identified 27 persistent communities in the study area. Figure 8.12 shows the 2- and 7-km catchments around the community centers that constitute these persistent communities, illustrating the location of these persistent communities and their associated sustaining areas. The most tightly clustered persistent communities with the longest histories are located in the portion of the central Mesa Verde region that stretches from the Mancos River on the southeast to Alkali Ridge in the northwest. To the west of Alkali Ridge these persistent places are spatially more extensive (here I relaxed the 7-km threshold to include moves of less than a 10-km costequivalent distance). In this western area there is persistent use of each of the major north-south running drainages: Recapture Wash, Cottonwood Wash, and Comb Wash. CONCLUSIONS I believe that our studies of mobility in the Southwest, at least as they apply to the central Mesa Verde region, missed the mark when they documented mobility at the level of the site and then concluded that ancient southwestern societies were not sedentary or only marginally sedentary. We missed the mark because we did not consider this site-level mobility in the context of the larger communities of which they were a part and because we focused on seasonal mobility to the near exclusion of supra-annual residential mobility. This research has measured the frequency of household residential mobility and the relative persistence of communities. In contrast to communities, households did move relatively frequently; certainly they moved more frequently than early researchers in southwestern archaeology realized. However, the frequency of household residential mobility that I have documented would meet most traditional threshold definitions for sedentism and would probably be best described as short-term sedentism. Communities, at least communities in the middle portion of the central Mesa Verde region, appear to have relocated much less frequently than households, some of them remaining in their sustaining localities for centuries. Therefore, these central Mesa Verde region communities exhibited something like the long-term sedentism of the century-long conventional interpretation. Instead of always reacting to changing environmental conditions and resource depletion by simply packing up and moving elsewhere-especially as increased population density made it more difficult to do so-these long-lived communities responded by intensifying their use of a finite area. The result was a cultural landscape that was increasingly formatted by these long-lived communities. These communities had histories; we still need a better under-

PERSISTENT COMMUNITIES AND MOBILE HOUSEHOLDS

standing of these histories because they provide the social context needed to fully analyze sedentism and mobility in the region. Understanding household movement in the context of the historic development of these communities means that mobility needs to be modeled as a social process. To model mobility as a social process, I incorporate the concepts of structure and agency, and I view mobility as a critical part of the mode of production of ancient Puebloan society. Incorporating structure and agency allows us to see how interaction among individuals both perpetuated and transformed their historically constituted social structure. Viewing mobility as a part of the mode of production shows how population movement connected people to both natural and social resources. The persistent communities illustrated in Figure 8.12 would have constituted an important dimension of the social, economic, and political structure within the region. Agents-that is, individuals and individuals that grouped themselves into households or corporate groups-would have negotiated their residential movement in this historically constituted landscape. This residential mobility would have provided agents with access to natural and social resources that were absolutely necessary for life in the central Mesa Verde region. The structure that developed as a part of the centuries-long occupation of areas by persistent communities would have included land-tenure and resource-access systems, systems that would have been created by the regular interaction of individuals within the context of their communities. Land tenure and resource access may have changed through time as the number of communities increased and their use areas increasingly overlapped. Increasing competition for resources likely produced increasingly formal land-tenure systems, and this would have had important implications for the movement of individuals and households within the region (Adler 1996; Varien 1999: 208-213).

These data also indicate that migration from the central Mesa Verde region was probably a long-term process that occurred at a variety of social and temporal scales. Researchers have offered different interpretations about the timing of the migration from the central Mesa Verde region and the region's eventual depopulation. Some suggest emigration began in A.D. 1150; others argue for the early 1200S; and still others argue that population grew until the last decades of the 1200S, culminating in a large, rapid migration at this time. The analyses presented above suggest that all three could be possible. Community centers on the margins of the large-site settlement system were being depopulated as early as 1150, a process that continues in the early 1200S. Some of the members of these communities may have left the region to join communities elsewhere during this time, setting up migration streams that structured the final depopulation of the area in the late 1200S. During the same 1150 to 1225 period we also see continuity of occupation in communities located in the middle portion of the central Mesa Verde region, as well as the formation of new

MARK D. VARIEN

communities in this area. Some localities within the central Mesa Verde region did grow until the late 1200S, and undoubtedly there were many thousands of people living in the region after A.D. 1260. The residents of the central Mesa Verde region in the thirteenth century increasingly faced a dramatic choice: to stay in the area that had sustained Puebloan communities for centuries or migrate to find a new home elsewhere. Finally, it appears that strategies for residential mobility within the region may have changed through time. I offer a hypothesis on how these changes may have affected social relations. To borrow terminology from Stone (1993), the people inhabiting the persistent communities shown in Figure 8.12 increasingly became «intensifiers;' whereas those living outside these persistent communities remained as «extensifiers:' These two groups may have come to use the larger central Mesa Verde region in different ways, ways that may have resulted in conflict. In the most productive portions of the central Mesa Verde region, intensifiers increasingly restricted their residential mobility and created communities that lasted centuries; they would have intensified production in the sustaining areas immediately surrounding their communities. In contrast, extensifiers lived on the periphery of the central Mesa Verde region, where they practiced more extensive agriculture and higher frequency of residential mobility. Intensifiers may have organized logistically to exploit this periphery as a secondary sustaining area, particularly if their immediate sustaining areas became depleted of resources such as large game (Driver, this volume). Extensifiers, on the other hand, continued to use the area on the periphery of the central Mesa Verde region as their primary sustaining area. The contradiction between these two modes of production may have produced tensions between those living in the two areas. It is possible that such tensions contributed to the increasing conflict we see in the central Mesa Verde region during the late 1200S (Kuckelman, this volume), which in turn may have contributed to the final migration from the region.

Acknowledgments. The research reported in this chapter was funded by the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center and by grants from the Graduate Support Office at Arizona State University (ASU), the ASU Department of Anthropology, the Colorado Historical Society State Historical Fund, and the Ballantine Family Fund. I am also grateful to Josh Torres, Neal Morris, Ginnie Dunlop, and G. Stuart Patterson, who drafted the figures that appear in this chapter. This chapter was based on material that was previously published in the book Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond, published by the University ofArizona Press.

9 Measuring Community Interaction Pueblo III Pottery Production and Distribution in the Central Mesa Verde Region CHRISTOPHER PIERCE, DONNA M. GLOWACKI, AND MARGARET M. THURS

I

n the late thirteenth century Pueblo people left the central Mesa Verde region and other parts of the northern Southwest, eventually moving south to areas now occupied by the modern Pueblo people. This migration by a substantial population from a large area has attracted considerable attention from archaeologists and the public since it was first documented in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Although a variety of explanations have been proposed for this large-scale migration, most have focused primarily on the debilitating effects of the severe drought that engulfed the region from A.D. 1276 to 1299 (Douglass 1929; Petersen 1988). However, the potential agricultural productivity in the central Mesa Verde region remained sufficiently high to support a viable population even during periods of severe drought (Dean and Van West, this volume; Van West 1994; Van West and Lipe 1992). In addition, the environmental challenges of the late thirteenth century do not appear to have been any more severe than those that were faced during the late ninth and twelfth centuries. Although ancestral Pueblo populations in the central Mesa Verde region responded to both of these earlier climatic downturns by migrating south, small populations remained in the area during both episodes, and substantial populations returned shortly after conditions began to improve (Wilshusen, this volume). Consequently, we can refine our questions regarding the late-thirteenth-century depopulation and migration in two ways. First, why did the entire Pueblo population leave the Four Corners area in the thirteenth century, when emigration does not appear to have been the case during earlier droughts? Second, why did Pueblo populations not return to the central Mesa

185

186

C. PIERCE, D. M. GLOWACKI, AND M. M. THURS

Verde region after the thirteenth century drought ended, as they had done after previous droughts? Answers to both these questions may involve changes in the ways Pueblo people interacted. If Pueblo III communities in the northern San Juan region became increasingly autonomous, or even competitively hostile, this would have resulted in limited mobility outside community territories (Kuckelman et al. 2000; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 1994; Neily 1983; Varien 1997a, this volume). A lack of cooperative interaction and short-distance movement and a rise in competition and conflict among communities would have significantly limited the ability of populations to compensate for local shortfalls in agricultural productivity. As a consequence the degree of subsistence stress experienced by members of individual communities during periods of drought may have increased, possibly forcing a simultaneous long-distance migration. On the other hand, if Pueblo III communities had become increasingly integrated and interdependent, it may have been extremely difficult for small populations to remain behind while others migrated in the face of drought-induced agricultural disruption. Consequently, determining if small settlements and larger centers of central Mesa Verde region communities were autonomous and competitive, or integrated into larger interdependent local and regional systems, has important implications for explaining the thirteenth-century depopulation of the northern San Juan region. Traditionally, studies of scale and intensity of interaction within the central Mesa Verde region have focused on the spatial arrangement of settlements. Clusters of contemporary settlements are used to identify communities, particularly if these clusters contain potentially integrative public or civic architecture such as great kivas (Adler 1990, this volume; Adler and Varien 1994; Lipe 1992b; Neily 1983; Rohn 1977). Communities identified in this way are then assumed to have been areas of intense social and economic interaction with less interaction occurring between such communities. Application of this approach to the Sand Canyon locality, a 200-km 2 area northwest of Mesa Verde (see Figure 1.2), has resulted in identification of three communities: upper Sand Canyon, lower Sand Canyon, and Goodman Point (Adler and Varien 1994; Lipe 1992b). During the thirteenth century each of these communities consisted of clusters of settlements focused around a relatively large pueblo containing public architecture. In the upper Sand Canyon community the principal settlement is Sand Canyon Pueblo, a large village with more than 400 surface rooms; approximately 90 kivas; 14 towers; a multiwalled, D-shaped structure; a great kiva; and an enclosed plaza (Bradley 1992a, 1993; Ortman and Bradley, this volume). The largest settlement in the lower Sand Canyon community is Castle Rock Pueblo, consisting of approximately 40 surface rooms, at least 16 kivas, 9 towers, a D-shaped enclosure, and 2 plazas (Kleidon 1999; Kuckelman, ed. 2000; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 1994). Goodman Point Pueblo, the central settlement of the Goodman Point community,

MEASURING COMMUNITY INTERACTION

has approximately 400 rooms, 90 kivas, a biwall structure, and a great kiva (Adler 1990). Thus far there has been little effort to augment our understanding of interaction based on spatial proximity and internal organization of settlements with other measures of interaction. The movement of pottery among contemporary settlements offers another means of documenting interaction. We have begun to generate data on pottery production and distribution by examining direct evidence of pottery production and analyzing the composition of pottery recovered from middle and late Pueblo III settlements in the upper and lower Sand Canyon communities and on Mesa Verde. Analyses completed thus far and described in this chapter indicate that involvement in pottery production was widespread, that substantial amounts of pottery or raw materials moved between contemporary settlements in different communities, and that some settlements may have produced pottery for export, whereas others were more dependent on imported vessels. METHODS AND MATERIALS Measuring the movement or distribution of pottery between settlements involves delineating areas in which relatively homogeneous pottery was produced and then identifying pottery from these production areas in settlements outside the production-area boundary. Commonly, attributes of pottery such as design styles, technological features, and raw material composition have been used to distinguish production areas and to establish the criteria for identifying pottery from these areas. In this study we employ two kinds of evidence for pottery production and distribution in the Sand Canyon locality of the central Mesa Verde region: (1) direct indicators of pottery production, including the tools, raw materials, and by-products of pottery manufacture and (2) compositional variation, identified through microscopic analysis of temper and chemical characterization of pottery and raw clay using instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). We chose not to examine stylistic and technological aspects of pottery variation because of the small spatial scale over which we are trying to measure the movement of pottery. Our study focuses on data from 15 Pueblo III settlements in the upper and lower Sand Canyon communities (Figure 9.1) intensively investigated by the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center between 1984 and 1994 (Lipe, ed. 1992; Varien 1997a; Varien, ed. 1999). In addition, compositional analyses were performed on a small number of sherds from two Pueblo III settlements on Mesa Verde, Mug House (Rohn 1971) and Long House (Cattanach 1980). The Sand Canyon and Mesa Verde settings offer excellent opportunities for compositional studies because of the geological variation within and between these areas. Raw clay sources available include outcrops of ancient marine and alluvial formations and recent alluvial deposits. Potential temper materials include

188

C. PIERCE, D. M. GLOWACKI, AND M. M. THURS

f INOrth V;maQ) Contour interval 800 ft.

o

2!

I

miles

o,

1

f

3,

kilometers •

Tested site

•

Intensively excavated site

Lillian's SiteA .G and G Hamlet • Roy's Ruin Kenzie Dawn Hamlet

Lookout House

.. ' --;.: ShorJen,e's S:. " '• • •Sand Canyon Pueblo Troys TowerA Lester's Site Green Lizard Site·• •Stanton's Site Catherine's Site

) .f·

§j

~:

~J

ri,!

"

... / " ' - " ' - . ..~,

)

c':'

~!

ra'

~(

Figure 9.1. Map of the locations of Sand Canyon locality sites from which materials were analyzed for this chapter. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

~:'

.I

\ ...- ••o,"--_--=-.'-r.,. __ "

~~ ... -

...

~ ... ~ ... )

distinctive sandstone and intrusive igneous formations (Ekren and Houser 1965; Griffitts 1990).

Direct Evidence ofPottery Manufacture

If inhabitants of a settlement were manufacturing pottery) the various activities involved in making pottery should have left material traces in the form of tools) facilities) raw materials) and other by-products. Identifying these traces in the archaeological record can provide direct evidence of not only the presence of pottery production at that location but also other aspects of the production process) such as its organizational context) spatial concentration) scale) and intensity (Costin 1991; Mills and Crown 1995). Pottery manufacture tools) unfired pottery) and manipulated raw clay and temper materials constitute the range of direct evidence for pottery production commonly found at sites in the central Mesa Verde region and elsewhere in the northern Southwest. Manufacturing tools include base molds or pukis, scrapers used to shape

MEASURING COMMUNITY INTERACTION

and smooth vessel surfaces, and polishing stones used to polish the surfaces of white ware pottery (Blinman and Wilson 1993; Hill 1985, 1994; Waterworth and Blinman 1986). Raw materials include lumps of raw clay, chunks of temper materials, and examples of clay and temper mixed together. Pottery kilns and their associated production debris have also been found in the region, but they are usually located a considerable distance from the nearest settlement and are difficult to link to production at individual sites or even communities (Bernardini 2000; Blinman and Swink 1997; Brisbin 1996; Fuller 1984; Purcell 1993). We documented direct evidence for pottery production at 14 of the sites excavated in the Sand Canyon locality. One additional site, Green Lizard Hamlet, excavated in the San Canyon locality, was not included in the study of direct production evidence because the artifact collection from the site was not available at the time this study was performed. During excavation, workers in the field carefully collected all possible examples of pottery raw materials, including clay lumps that were different from the mortar used in wall construction, chunks of broken igneous rock of the type used as temper in some vessels, and unfired pottery vessels and fragments. In the lab these possible raw materials were further examined for evidence of manipulation, and only those specimens that were clearly manipulated by shaping, crushing, or mixing temper and clay or that occurred in large quantities on use surfaces were considered evidence ofpottery manufacture. We examined the pieces of unfired pottery to determine the type of pottery and raw materials used. Possible tools used in pottery manufacture were also analyzed. All modified sherds, pottery fragments with one edge or more showing wear from use, were examined for traces of the drumlin-like wear pattern (Waterworth and Blinman 1986) produced by scraping wet clay. We examined all rounded, smooth pebbles and stones for striations and adhering clay, which result from their use in polishing pottery. Only smooth stones possessing signs of abrasive wear or adhering clay were classified as polishing stones. Finally, all possible base molds, shallow bowls, and vessel base fragments were examined for indications that the shallow form was produced or enhanced deliberately.

Compositional Analyses Analyses of the composition of pottery provide indirect evidence for both the production and exchange of pottery, thereby allowing an assessment of social interaction. By linking composition patterns to the locations of available raw materials we can identify likely pottery production areas. Exchange is evaluated by identifying pottery produced in one area and recovered from another. We generated compositional data by examining and classifying the temper and measuring the bulk elemental composition (clay and temper) using instrumental neutron activation analysis. For both analyses we selected a sample of rim fragments from Mesa Verde Black-on-white bowls and Mesa Verde Corrugated jars, the two most common stylistic types and vessel forms

190

C. PIERCE, D. M. GLOWACKI, AND M. M. THURS

made during the thirteenth century in the central Mesa Verde region (Breternitz et al. 1974). Individual specimens were selected randomly from the population of rim sherds recovered from each site. Once the sample of 30 was drawn, the rim sherds were compared to one another to determine if any came from the same vessel. If so, only one sherd was retained and an additional specimen selected until all sherds in the sample represented different vessels. Consequently, the materials analyzed from each assemblage constitute a sample of whole vessels, not sherds. Although the total population of whole vessels represented by the individual rim sherds in each assemblage is not currently known, the proportion of vessels analyzed by our samples is considerably higher than if sherds were the population being sampled. This means that even though the absolute number of specimens characterized in each analysis is small, the proportion of vessels characterized is fairly high for most assemblages and in some cases included all bowls represented in the excavated sample. The specific sample sizes and procedures for each analysis are presented below. Temper Analysis. Temper was identified in Mesa Verde Black-an-white bowls from allIS of the Sand Canyon locality sites excavated by the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Although we examined bowl-rim sherds for the temper analysis, they are representative of unique vessels because the sherds were selected so that they displayed unique combinations of morphological and design features, which would not be present in a single vessel. We analyzed sherds from 30 bowls at all but two sites, Mad Dog Tower (n == 13) and Troy's Tower (n == 20), for which we analyzed all available bowl rims from different vessels. We also identified temper in 30 Mesa Verde Corrugated jars from three of the upper Sand Canyon sites (Sand Canyon Pueblo, Stanton's Site, and Green Lizard Hamlet) and two lower Sand Canyon sites (Castle Rock Pueblo and Saddlehorn Hamlet). We analyzed each specimen by first breaking off a small corner of the sherd with pliers to expose an unweathered edge. This fresh edge was examined using a binocular microscope with magnification up to 60x. We recorded the relative abundance and type of all common sand-sized grains in each specimen. These data were then used to construct three temper classes: crushed sherd, crushed sandstone, and crushed igneous rock. We identified each specimen to a single temper class based on its dominant temper ingredient. Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. We performed this bulk elemental characterization on 30 Mesa Verde Black-an-white bowls each from Castle Rock Pueblo in lower Sand Canyon, Sand Canyon Pueblo in upper Sand Canyon, and Long House and Mug House on Wetherill Mesa in Mesa Verde National Park (Glowacki 1995; Glowacki et al. 1995, 1998). We also analyzed 30 Mesa Verde Corrugated jars each from the two sites on Mesa Verde. In addition, raw clay samples from 19 sources in Sand Canyon and the McElmo

MEASURING COMMUNITY INTERACTION

Drainage and 35 sources in Mesa Verde National Park were characterized for this study. Instrumental neutron activation analysis was undertaken at the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR), using their established standardcomparator procedure (Glascock 1992). Individual pottery samples were prepared by removing the exterior surfaces using a tungsten-carbide drill to avoid possible contamination from paint, slip, and other material adhering to the vessel surface. The clay samples were fired to 700 0 C. Both pottery and clay samples were crushed into a fine powder and weighed into two 200-mg samples. INAA of pottery and raw clay samples at MURR consists of two irradiations and three counts on 200-mg samples prepared in polyvials and highpurity quartz vials (Glascock 1992). A pneumatic tube system transports samples in polyvials to the reactor core where the samples are exposed to a neutron flux of 8 x 1013 n/cm2 /s for five-second irradiations. After irradiation each sample decays for 25 minutes, followed by a 12-minute count with an HPGe detector to measure concentrations of the short-lived elements AI, Ba, Ca, Dy, K, Mn, Na, Ti, and V in each sample. A long irradiation of 24 hours is carried out on the samples sealed in quartz vials using a neutron flux of5 x 1013 n/cm2 /s to measure the concentrations of elements with longer half-lives. A middle count for 2,000 seconds with an HPGe detector coupled to an automatic sample changer is performed after samples decay for seven days to determine concentrations of As, La, Lu, Nd, Sm, U, and Yb. After an additional three-to-four-week decay a final count of 10,000 seconds measures the longlived elements (Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Eu, Fe, Hf, Ni, Rb, Sb, Sc, Sr, Ta, Tb, Th, Zn, and Zr). Resulting data are analyzed using multivariate statistical procedures through a series of programs written in GAUSS language (Neff 1990). The analysis objectives are to identify pottery compositional groups and to link pottery of unknown provenance to known clay sources and previously estab-

lished groups or to determine that a group assignment is not possible (Glascock 1992). First, element concentration data are transformed to log base 10 values, scaling the data to account for large magnitude differences among major trace elements. Principal components analysis (PCA) provides a view of subgroup structure. Using eigenvector extraction, peA finds the orientations and lengths of axes of greatest variance in the data and organizes these axes by decreasing variance (Baxter 1993; Davis 1986). Using PCA as a simultaneous RQ mode allows the plotting of both elements and objects to evaluate the relationship of elements or groups of elements contributing to group separation (Baxter 1992; Neff 1994). Simultaneous RQ mode PCA of the variancecovariance matrix was used to analyze these data. To evaluate the coherence of each group, Mahalanobis distances were used to calculate multivariate probabilities of group membership (Bieber et al. 1976; Bishop and Neff1989; HarbottIe 1976; Sayre 1975).

192

Table 9.1.

C. PIERCE, D. M. GLOWACKI, AND M. M. THURS

Presence (+) or Absence (-) of Different Kinds of Direct Evidence of Pottery Production Recovered from 14 Sites in the Sand Canyon Locality Pottery Production Evidence

Assemblages Upper Canyon sites Lillian's Site G & G Hamlet Roy's Ruin Kenzie Dawn Hamlet Sand Canyon Pueblo Shorlene's Site Troy's Tower Lester's Site Lookout House Stanton's Site Catherine's Site Lower Canyon sites Saddlehorn Hamlet Mad Dog Tower Castle Rock Pueblo

Base Molds

Polishing Stones

+

+

Unfired Pottery

+

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ +

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

Raw Clay

Igneous Rock Chunks

+ + + +

+

+ + +

+ + + +

+ + +

+ + + +

+ +

+

+ + +

RESULTS

Production Evidence Table 9.1 shows the presence or absence of four different kinds of direct evidence of pottery production at 14 of the sites in the Sand Canyon locality. We recognized base molds only when a complete or nearly complete example was recovered. In most cases base molds consist of broken bases of corrugated and white ware jars that had been modified by grinding and shaping the broken edge. Similar modification appears on numerous fragments identified as modified sherds; consequently, the modified sherd category probably contains fragments of base molds not identified as such (Pierce et al. 1999). Modified sherds were examined for the presence of "pot scraper" wear, but no examples of this distinctive wear pattern were found. Although sherd scrapers used to work wet clay are fairly common in Basketmaker III through Pueblo II assemblages, some other tool or technique appears to have been used to shape pottery vessels during Pueblo III (see also Wilson 1991). All of the examples of unfired pottery examined for this study that could be identified to pottery ware are slipped and sometimes painted white wares. No examples of corrugated or plain gray ware unfired pottery are present in the Sand Canyon collections. This may be a bias produced by the very small sample of unfired pottery. However, it may also indicate that a selected subset ofvessels, white wares, were used in an unfired state leading to their differential preservation (Bradley 1992b:38-39). If the occur-

MEASURING COMMUNITY INTERACTION

6

193

95% Individual CI

C/) C/)

Q)

u c:

... . ... 1910

4

Q)

0

u

::J

a..

• 0 2.5

3 11

•

2

\J 0 ~

4

82 6

\J .S; 3 w c: +:i

•

•

c: 5 ..c u Q)

a:

5

14

3.0

••

12

•

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

LOQ10 of Total Pottery Count

rence of unfired pottery is related to the use of these vessels rather than the chance preservation of pottery before it was fired, then the recovery of unfired pottery may not be a reliable direct indicator of pottery production. Angular igneous rock chunks are almost certainly the by-products of temper production because very few of the stone tools at these sites were manufactured from this kind of raw material (Pierce et al. 1999). In addition, the material closely matches the crushed igneous rock used as pottery temper (Hegmon 199sa). Although the 14 sites show considerable variation in the richness of pottery production evidence, a significant positive correlation (r2 == 0.60, P == 0.001) exists between the loglO value of the size of the sample from each site (measured by the total number of pieces of pottery recovered) and production evidence richness (Figure 9.2). This correlation suggests that variation in production evidence may be a result of differences in sample size among the sites rather than an indication of the differential presence or intensity of pottery manufacture. However, sample size also correlates with the size and complexity of the site; this could also cause the strong richness-sample size relationship if people living in the larger settlements were more heavily involved in pottery manufacture. It is impossible to argue convincingly that little or no pottery production took place at sites with small samples and meager evidence of pottery production, such as Saddlehorn Hamlet and Mad Dog Tower, without increasing the sample size from these sites. However, the overall pattern of direct production evidence indicates that most, if not all, Pueblo III settlements in the Sand

Figure 9.2. Scatter plot showing the correlation between the richness of direct evidence of pottery production and a measure of the recovered sample size from 14 sites in the Sand Canyon localitY.1 = Lillian's Site, 2 = G and G Hamlet, 3 = Roy's Ruin, 4 = Kenzie Dawn Hamlet, 5 = Sand Canyon Pueblo, 6 = Shorlene's Site, 7 = Troy's Tower, 8 = Lester's Site, 9 = Lookout House, 10 = Stanton's Site, 11 = Catherine's Site, 12 = Saddlehorn Hamlet, 13 = Mad Dog Tower, 14 = Castle Rock Pueblo.

C. PIERCE, D. M. GLOWACKI, AND M. M. THURS

194

•

Igneous Temper

00/0

200/0

o

Sand Temper

400/0

60%

•

Sherd Temper

80%

100%

Lillian's Site

G and G Hamlet

Roy's Ruin

Sharlene's Site

Kenzie Dawn Hamlet

Sand Canyon Pueblo Lester's Site

Lookout House

Troy's Tower

Green Lizard Hamlet

Stanton's Site Figure 9.3. Bar graph of the relative frequencies of the three main temper classes in Mesa Verde Black-on-white bowls from 15 sites in the Sand Canyon locality) arranged vertically from north (top) to south (bottom).

Catherine's Site Saddlehorn Hamlet Mad Dog Tower

Castle Rock Pueblo

Canyon locality were involved in pottery manufacture to some degree, suggesting a fairly dispersed, small-scale organization of production.

Pottery Temper Figure 9.3 shows the relative frequencies of the three main temper classes (crushed igneous rock, crushed sandstone, and crushed pottery sherds) used

MEASURING COMMUNITY INTERACTION

in the production of Mesa Verde Black-on-white bowls in the 15 Sand Canyon locality assemblages arranged vertically from north to south. Results from five assemblages for which we identified the temper of corrugated jars indicate that crushed igneous rock was used almost exclusively throughout the locality. Of the three temper categories, igneous rock is the only one with a restricted source within the locality. Sleeping Ute Mountain and the alluvial terraces of McElmo Creek at the mouth of Sand Canyon constitute the nearest sources of igneous rock to the Sand Canyon locality sites. Only one of the sites, Castle Rock Pueblo, lies within the zone of natural igneous rock availability. We were unable to distinguish easily different kinds of crushed sandstone temper even though very distinctive sandstone deposits exist within the locality. A more detailed petrographic analysis would probably yield better results. Despite these limitations, sandstone for temper was likely readily available to the inhabitants of allIS sites. Clearly, the inhabitants of all sites also had easy and almost unlimited access to potsherds for grinding into temper. Consequently, our discussion of the temper data focuses on the differential use of igneous rock in Mesa Verde Black-on-white bowls throughout the locality. Among the assemblages from upper Sand Canyon, three different patterns of igneous rock use can be seen (Figure 9.4). Igneous rock temper occurs in small amounts (less than 20 percent) in all of the small settlements located on the mesa top north of Sand Canyon Pueblo. These sites were occupied early in the thirteenth century before Sand Canyon Pueblo was constructed (Varien, ed. 1999). Sand Canyon Pueblo and the two contemporary small sites located near it (Lester's Site and Lookout House) show almost no use of igneous rock temper in white ware bowls although almost all corrugated jars analyzed were tempered with igneous rock. Finally, igneous rock temper occurs in relatively high proportions (close to half of all bowls analyzed) among the three settlements located within Sand Canyon a short distance south of Sand Canyon Pueblo (Green Lizard Hamlet, Stanton's Site, and Catherine's Site). These three settlements were also occupied at the same time as Sand Canyon Pueblo. These sites show the greatest use of igneous rock temper within the entire Sand Canyon locality even though the nearest igneous source is 6.5 km to the south and 300 m lower in elevation. The possibility that the igneous rock in these white ware bowls came from ground up corrugated jars is unlikely because the igneous-tempered bowls rarely contained any crushed sherd. All of the assemblages from the lower Sand Canyon community have Mesa Verde Black-on-white bowls with igneous rock temper, but at Saddlehorn Hamlet igneous rock temper is abundant (43 percent). Despite their close proximity to the igneous rock source, Castle Rock Pueblo and Mad Dog Tower yielded white ware bowls with only 20 and 15 percent igneous tempered bowls. However, all corrugated jars analyzed from Castle Rock and Saddlehorn contained igneous rock temper. All three of these lower Sand Canyon sites appear to have been occupied during the latter half of the thirteenth century, and were contemporary with Sand Canyon Pueblo (Varien, ed.1999).

195

C. PIERCE, D. M. GLOWACKI, AND M. M. THURS

4143000

4142000 4141000

r ......................__

Upper Sand Canyon u

.c

~

Z 4140000 en

CD Q)

~

4139000

.-::::> ~

~ 4138000 "'0 Q)

C> C

~ 4137000

«

en Q)

C>

Figure 9.4. The percentage of Mesa Verde Blackon-white bowls with predominantly crushed igneous rock temper in 15 Sand Canyon locality assemblages plotted against UTMG north coordinate for each site.

50 structures) sites from the central Mesa Verde region, from two periods-early Pueblo III (A.D. 1150-1225) and late Pueblo III (A.D. 1225-1290) (Figures 10.1 and 10.2; Tables 10.1 and 10.2). The "structure" estimates include both kivas and surface rooms. Information is predominantly from a database of large central Mesa Verde region settlements assembled by MarkVarien (also see Varien 1999; Varien et al. 1996) from published sources, site survey records, and information provided by colleagues.

205

206

WILLIAM D. LIPE

f

KEY

N

•

T

....

~

)

!

\

\

Bl8tl!ling

\~

50-150 structures

•

151-250 structures

•

> 250 structures

..

1 .) ~

1 ~ ~ l ) ",""-/ \ i '1

o

10

20

Kilometers

--------

}~-----~~----_._-----­ ARIZONA

COl.ORAOO

---------NEwMeX'CO---------

..

ii: --------

Figure 10.1. Distribution of large sites in the central Mesa Verde region dating between A.D. u50 and 1225. showing the following site clusters: (A) Battleship Rock cluster; (B) Sand Canyon locality cluster; (C) Upper Hovenweep cluster; (D) Lowry cluster; and (E) Alkali Ridge cluster. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

The second approach is to consider social power at the community level. Here I will focus on evidence from excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo and other thirteenth-century sites in the Sand Canyon locality, exploring possible expressions of social power in the character and distribution of public and domestic architecture, ceramic vessel size, wealth items, burials, and subsistence. Information is from the numerous reports and publications on work in the Sand Canyon locality by archaeologists from the Crow Canyon Center (see especiallyVarien and Wilshusen, this volume and Ortman and Bradley, this volume). REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES A BriefSettlement History

The following sketch of settlement in the Pueblo II and III periods (A.D. 900-1300) is based largely on research done by staff archaeologists and research associates of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center (see review in Varien and Wilshusen, this volume). Throughout Pueblo II and III the occupants of the central Mesa Verde region were thoroughly dependent on dryfarming maize, predominantly on upland loess soils at elevations over 6,000 ft. Modeling of soil quality and precipitation by Van West (1994; also see Van West and Dean 2000 and Varien et al. 2000) indicates that populations in the tens of

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

207

Monticello

\

N T

(

KEY •

~.

50- 150 structures

•

151-250 structures

•

> 250 structures

I

o

Mexican Hat

c~

________ .J;.~

10

20

Kilometers

~~ ARIZONA

_

- --

---

COlORADO

- -- NEwMeXtCo-" -

--- --

.• ..

ii:- - - - - - -

~

Figure 10.2. Distribution oflarge sites in the central Mesa Verde region dating between A.D. 1225 and 1290, showing the following site clusters: (A) Chapin Mesa cluster; (B) Wetherill Mesa cluster; (C) Yellow Jacket Canyon cluster; (D) Lower Hovenweep cluster; (E) Upper Hovenweep cluster; (F) Ruin Canyon/Cow Canyon cluster; (G) Lower Squaw Canyon cluster; (H) Upper Squaw Canyon cluster; (I) Cottonwood Wash cluster. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

thousands could have been supported on these soils even in drought years. The archaeological record indicates, however, that regional populations remained well below agricultural carrying capacity, although it may have been approached in some particular localities (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Van West 1994; Wilshusen, this volume). In the A.D. 1000S and 1100S the predominant community pattern was widely dispersed small settlements consisting of one or two "unit type pueblos" (Prudden 1903). These habitation units became increasingly aggregated into large pueblos between A.D. 1150 and the 1270S. Both large and small settlements appear to have had relatively short use lives (20 to 40 years), but communities appear to have stayed in the same general locations for many generations (Adler 1990, 1996; Adler and Varien 1994; Varien 1999; Varien, this volume). Architecturally, each habitation unit consists ofa round, semisubterranean kiva and a small block of 5 to 10 surface living and storage rooms. Surface rooms are typically to the north or northwest of the kiva, and a midden area is to the south or southeast. The uniform association of storage structures with the habitation unit reinforces the notion that households were economically self-sufficient. The kivas have architectural features that appear symbolic of important religious beliefs (for example, the emergence of people from worlds below), and they undoubtedly were the locus of certain types of rituals carried

WILLIAM D. LIPE

208

Table 10.1.

Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1150-1225

Cluster and Site Names Yellow Jacket Pueblo Alkali Ridge Cluster Ten-Acre Ruin Brew's Site 1 Lancaster/Pharo Ruin Herren Farms Nancy Patterson Pueblo Upper Hovenweep Cluster Kristie's Ruin Head ofHovenweep Ruin Carol's Ruin Kearns Site Mud Springs Bass Complex Hedley Middle Ruin Montezuma Village II Griffey Site Mitchell Springs Carvell Ruin Battleship Rock Cluster Battleship Rock Complex Site 34 Lowry Cluster Pigg Site Finley/Charnel/Ray Five-Acre Ruin Sand Canyon Locality Cluster Shields Pueblo Casa Negra Jackson's Montezuma No.2 Woods Canyon Pueblo Kiva Point Parker Site Lower Squaw Mesa Village Gravel Pit Site Decker Ruin Hoy House Mockingbird Mesa-Top Ruin Brewer Mesa Pueblo Aneth Archaeological Complex Far View Ruin Lion House Rich's Ruin Tsitah Wash Complex Greasewood Flat Ruin Black Mesa Quartzite Pueblo Red Knobs Site Mouth of Mule Canyon Complex

Number of Structures (Site and Site Clusters)

Principal Public Architecture

700 465 350 115

410 300 285 225

Plaza

Plaza

115

Great Kiva

60 50

200 180 180 180 175 170 150 150 145

Great Kiva (?) Tri-wall Bi-wall (?)

Great Kiva 90 55

145 90 55

Large Tower

140 120 60 60

115 110 100 95 90 85 70 65 65 65 65 55 55 50 50 50 50 50 50

Nearby isolated Great Kiva

2 Great Kivas, Bi-wall Tower

Great Kiva (?) Great Kiva Great Kiva Great Kiva (?) Great Kiva

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

Table 10.1.

209

Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1150-1225 continued

Cluster and Site Names Total sites In 5 clusters Total structures

Number of Structures (Site and Site Clusters) 43 11 5,650

In clusters Average structures/site Average structures/cluster Average structures/site in cluster Average structures/isolated site

Principal Public Architecture

1,100

131 220 100 142

out by or on behalf of members of the household. There also is abundant evidence that the kiva functioned as the primary domestic space for a household consisting of a nuclear or small extended family (Lipe 1989; Lipe and Varien 1999a:283-284). Household-based habitation units occurred singly as settlements in dispersed communities but are also found grouped into clusters or contiguous room blocks in larger settlements ranging from hamlets to villages having several hundred rooms. After an apparent low point in the A.D. 900S (Lipe and Varien 1999a; Varien et al. 1996; Wilshusen and Wilson 1995) population built up in the central Mesa Verde region during the A.D. 1000S (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Lipe and Varien 1999a; Wilshusen, this volume). The communities of dispersed small habitations often had a great kiva (many times the size of the small domestic kivas) , which probably was used in ceremonies that drew participants and spectators from across the whole community and perhaps from other communities as well. In the late 1000S and early 1100S Chacoan-type great houses appear in a substantial fraction of central Mesa Verde dispersed communities. The size, layout and formality of these great houses contrasts strongly with the ordinary

habitations. The great houses ostentatiously give the message that their inhabitants were specially favored and the keepers of powerful religious ceremonies (Sebastian 1992). The middle 1100S saw the most prolonged and severe drought of the entire Puebloan sequence in the northern San Juan (Dean and Van West, this volume; Van West and Dean 2000); the years from about 1150 to 1180 are very poorly known archaeologically. Chacoan-style great houses were no longer constructed after the late 1130S or early 1140S, and population may have declined in the following several decades, although this is disputable (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Lipe and Varien 1999b). Regional population clearly was high from the very late A.D. 1100S through most of the 1200S. Population probably peaked prior to A.D. 1250 and declined rapidly during the 1270S to full depopulation, almost certainly by A.D. 1285 or 1290 (Lipe 1995; Lipe and Varien 1999b). Settlement aggregation increased in the late 1100S, and this trend continued

WILLIAM D. LIPE

210

Table 10.2.

Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1225-1290

Cluster and Site Names

Number of Structures (Site and Site Clusters)

Yellow Jacket Pueblo Goodman Point-Shields Pueblo

700 651

Upper Hovenweep Cluster

610

Gardner Ruin Miller Pueblo Thompson Site McVicker Homestead Site Fuller Ruin Yucca House Wetherill Mesa Cluster

Great Tower Complex Circular Tri-wall, Great Kiva, Plaza, Room-dominated Block

290 105 85 75 55

600 585

Long House Mug House Double House Kodak House Ruin 16 Spring House Site 20.5

530

Hedley Main Ruin

515

Chapin Mesa Cluster

505 245

Spruce Tree House Square Tower House Oak Tree House

120 80 60

251 245 350 230 228

Seven Towers Pueblo

220

Lower Hovenweep Cluster

215

D-shaped Structure D-shaped Structures, Great Kiva (?), Plaza, Room-dominated Block (?)

115 100

Hibbetts Pueblo Big Spring Pueblo Ruin Canyon Rim Pueblo Cow Mesa No. 40 Cottonwood Ruin

D-shaped Structure, Plaza

120 108

Stevenson Site Rohn's No. 84

Ruin Canyon/Cow Canyon Cluster

Associated D-shaped Structure; Room-dominated Block (?)

496

Bob Hampton Ruin Brewer Canyon Pueblo Beartooth Ruin Little Cow Canyon Pueblo Yellow Jacket Canyon Cluster

Great Kiva

D-shaped Structure, Great Kiva, Plaza, Room-dominated Block D-shaped Structure, Plaza, Remodeled Great House

CliffPalace

Upper Squaw Canyon Cluster

Great Kiva D-shaped Structure, Plaza

Great Kiva(s), Walled Plaza

170 105 80 70 55 55 50

Sand Canyon Pueblo

Principal Nondomestic Architecture

215 100 60 55

Plaza

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

Table 10.2.

211

Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1225-1290 continued

Cluster and Site Names Woods Canyon Pueblo Lower Squaw Canyon Cluster Brewer Well Site Papoose Canyon Talus Site Spook Point Pueblo Cannonball Ruins Horseshoe/Hackberry Complex Moqui Spring Pueblo Cottonwood Wash Cluster Ruin Spring Ruin Radon Spring Ruin Coalbed Village Bradford Canyonhead Ruin Easter Ruin Bowman's Pueblo Morley-Kidder Lew Matis Village Hovenweep Square Tower Deadman's Canyonhead Ruin Rohn's No. 150 Ute Gravel Pit Site Castle Rock Pueblo Yellow Jacket Mesita Hovenweep Cajon Ruin Cowboy Wash Ruin Lancaster/Pharo Ruin Pedro Point Ruin Wetherill Chimney Rock Site Arch Canyon Site Total sites In 9 clusters Total structures In clusters Average structures/site Average structures/cluster Average structures/site in clusters Average structures/isolated site

Number of Structures (Site and Site Clusters) 200 195

Principal Nondomestic Architecture D-shaped Structure, Plaza

75 60 60 175 175 170 165

D-shaped Structure, Plaza D-shaped Structure Great Kiva, Bi-wall(?), Plaza 85 80

151 151 145 115 110 105 100 100 90 75 70 55 55 50 50 50 50 50 60

Plaza Great Kiva(?) D-shaped Structure

D-shaped Structure, Plaza D-shaped Structure Bi-wall, Plaza

30

9,302 3,214

155 357 107 203

through the 1200S. In the early 1200S, communities were often centered on a village-sized aggregate of 50 or more structures, usually with multiple room blocks, each containing several contiguous habitation units. The central villages were surrounded by dispersed homesteads and hamlets, each consisting of one or a few habitation units. Great kivas continued to be built, although they do not appear to be as common as prior to A.D. 1150 (Churchill et al. 1998). In some of the nuclear villages there were multistoried room blocks that in a general way resemble the earlier great houses, although they are neither as

212

WILLIAM D. LIPE

spatially nor as architecturally differentiated from surrounding residences (Lipe and Ortman 2000). "Multiwalled" structures, most of them circular with one or two tiers of small rooms surrounding a small central open space, appear in a few community centers (Churchill et al. 1998). In the late Pueblo III period (A.D. 1225-1290) aggregation continued, and communities increasingly shifted to canyon locales. Community centers were relocated to canyon heads or canyon rims close to good springs; peripheral smaller settlements were also located in the canyons (Lipe and Ortman 2000). Although the degree of community aggregation varied (Mahoney et al. 2000), by the late 1200S a majority of the people in the central Mesa Verde region were probably living in settlements of 50 or more structures. The canyon-oriented centers display distinctive patterns of settlement layout and public architecture. Some of these features occur in earlier periods, but the complex is distinctive to the middle and late A.D. 1200S in the central Mesa Verde area (Lipe and Lekson 2001; Lipe and Ortman 2000). It includes (1) close association with reliable springs; (2) construction oflow enclosing walls around all or a portion of the village; (3) bilateral but usually asymmetrical settlement layout, with the two parts often separated by an ephemeral drainage; (4) clustering of public architecture in particular areas of the site and sometimes in walled precincts; (5) increased numbers of towers, frequently not in association with particular habitation units; (6) multiwalled buildings with a D-shaped ground plan; (7) blocks of multiple small rooms lacking kivas that may be storage complexes not associated with single households; and (8) more frequent appearance of plazas, either defined by walls or by spaces left open among residential room blocks (Lipe and Ortman 2000). Great kivas occur in association with some centers but are rare (Churchill et al.1998). Kivas maintain a north-south orientation, and many villages do as well; the overall settlement layout is "front-oriented" (Reed 1956) rather than inwardly oriented toward a central plaza, as in later settlements in the Rio Grande area (Lipe and Lekson 2001). In the A.D. 1200S warfare appears to have been a fact of life in the central Mesa Verde region and the Four Corners area in general (Kuckelman et al. 2000; LeBlanc 1999). Kuckelman and others (Kuckelman, this volume; Kuckelman et aL 2002) present convincing evidence that the population of Castle Rock Pueblo-a small community center in the Sand Canyon locality-was massacred in the A.D. 1270s. Although skeletal evidence of violence in the central Mesa Verde area is by no means confined to the A.D. 1200S (Kuckelman et al. 2000), it seems likely that an increased concern for defense was partly or largely responsible for the move to canyon and canyon-rim locations and the increasing aggregation of the population into larger settlements during that century. The construction of enclosing walls (KenzIe 1993, 1997) and, perhaps, the proliferation of towers may also be indicators of defensive needs. Climates of the late 1200S posed adaptive problems for the central Mesa Verde region Puebloans, as summarized by Dean and Van West (this volume). Even so, Van West's (1994) reconstruction of potential maize productivity in

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

part of the central Mesa Verde region indicates that substantial amounts of maize could have been produced even in bad years. The complete depopulation of the area during the late A.D. 1200S evidently included emigration to regions farther south, although there may also have been local population decline from decreased fertility and/or increased mortality. Although emigration may have started in the early 1200S (Duff and Wilshusen 2000), the final depopulation probably resulted from the complex interaction of "push" factors such as climatic problems, the prevalence of warfare, and perhaps declining confidence in existing social and religious institutions, with "pull" factors such as the growth of Puebloan communities to the south and, perhaps, the attraction of the different social and religious systems present in those communities (Lipe 1995; Lipe and Lekson 2001).

Regional Population and Community Size

On the basis of an extensive cross-cultural survey Kosse (1990, 1996) suggests that multisettlement polities that integrate 3,000 or more people always have well-developed, formal, political hierarchies based on ascribed status. These "regionally integrated societies...are centrally organized under a single individual or council and integrate several local groups within a single polity" (Kosse 1996:87). Regional integration may be present at lower population sizes as well, but it becomes relatively less frequent, and the associated political leadership increasingly weak, as population numbers decrease. Kosse (1996:87) contrasts regionally integrated societies with "groups integrated at the local level. .. that are politically independent and autonomous and characteristically contain 'multiple clan or lineage segments that either live together in a village or are dispersed throughout the well-defined territory of the group' [Johnson and Earle 1987:20, 194]." Although there may be pronounced status differences in locally integrated societies, they are more egalitarian than those having regional integration. In her cross-cultural sample, polities having populations below 500 always show local integration, and the majority of polities with populations below 2,000 show this form of integration (Kosse 1996:Figure 11.6). Kosse's conclusions should not be read as establishing a "magic number threshold" above which societies show formal political hierarchies and below which they do not. Rather, her data indicate that such hierarchies become more probable as population size increases. Although estimating the total population of the central Mesa Verde region is a difficult problem, it seems clear that the regional population was large enough to have supported a regionally integrated polity with formal hierarchies during the two periods of interest here. Rohn (1989) suggests a maximum population of 30,000 for the A.D. 1200S in the central part of the northern San Juan (approximately the same area considered here), but he appears to assume a greater number of people per kiva and greater site longevity than do more recent estimates (e.g., Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Mahoney et al. 2000). Recent

213

214

WILLIAM D. LIPE

research (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Wilshusen, this volume) provides estimates of maximum regional population that range from about 4,500 to 11,500, depending on assumptions about rate of increase, date at which emigration of population out of the region began, and rate of emigration. My guess is that the population maximum for the central Mesa Verde region was reached in the early to middle A.D. 1200S and that it was somewhat in excess of 10,000 people but probably did not approach Rohn's estimate of 30,000. The evidence that the regional population was integrated into a single polity is weak, however, as discussed below. Were individual communities or clusters of communities large enough to support formal political hierarchies? Adler and Varien (1994:84) summarize cross-cultural data indicating that individual communities in politically nonstratified societies don't become larger than approximately 1,500 people. They suggest that this "limit...probably has to do with the constraints these societies face in integrating a large number of people in the absence of a stronglyhierarchical social framework." This is consistent with Kosse's results; her "regionally integrated polities" can contain multiple communities. Together, the studies by Kosse and by Adler and Varien indicate that polities integrating between about 500 and 2,500-3,000 people can vary substantially in the degree to which social power differences are present. Cross-culturally, polities in the middle of this range, 1,000-1,500 people, may be organized on either relatively egalitarian or relatively hierarchical principles but are unlikely to have "welldeveloped, formal, political hierarchies based on ascribed status" (Kosse 1996). Estimating the sizes of individual communities is a less daunting task than estimating total regional population but still faces numerous problems. Here the starting point is the list of central Mesa Verde region settlements having more than 50 structures (surface rooms plus kivas) for the early and late Pueblo III periods (Figures 10.1 and 10.2; Tables 10.1 and 10.2). Although many of these sites had occupation in both periods, most sites are assigned to the period when the site reached its greatest size. The exceptions are four sites that are assigned to both periods because we have good evidence they had more than 50 structures in both (Yellow Jacket, Woods Canyon, Shields, and Lancaster Pueblos). On the basis of several lines of evidence these large sites can be considered the centers of first-order or "face-to-face" communities (Varien 1999; Varien, this volume). Survey evidence indicates that such sites were located near the center of settlement clusters of varying sizes, with some community members living outside the nuclear aggregate in small settlements consisting of one or a few habitation units. Given the overall trend toward community aggregation through time, the more dispersed communities of the A.D. 1150-1225 period undoubtedly had a higher proportion of their population living outside the nucleated center than was the case in the A.D. 1225-1290 period. Plotting all or even very large numbers of the small peripheral settlements associated with

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

each community center cannot be done at present, given the spotty nature of survey coverage and the variable quality of survey records. Because the large central aggregates have high visibility and most have been resistant to complete destruction by farming and looting, the "large site" database is probably a reasonably good representation of Pueblo III period communities in the central Mesa Verde region, and especially of those in the late Pueblo III period (see further discussion in Varien et al. 1996). Various studies (see references and discussion in Mahoney et al. 2000:70, 86) indicate that for Pueblo II and Pueblo III Mesa Verde sites, structure count can serve as a reasonable rough approximation of the maximum number of people occupying a site (that is, 50 structures equals about 50 people). This in turn implies the presence of 5 to 10 households, each occupying a habitation unit consisting of a kiva and several associated surface storage and living rooms. Momentary populations (the number of people occupying the site at a particular point in time) were probably somewhat lower on average because all structures may not have been occupied throughout the site's history. Wilshusen (this volume) argues, however, that for community centers, total room count is a reasonably good estimate of average momentary population during the site's life span. All community centers were probably not occupied throughout the period in which they are placed, which introduces another uncertainty. Considering both large and small sites, a site use life of 20 to 40 years can be assumed for the Pueblo III period, probably with an increase in average use life through the period (Mahoney et al. 2000). Thus, if the 43 community centers assigned to the 74 years of early Pueblo III (A.D. 1150-1225) had an average use life of 30 years, and they were uniformly distributed through time, only about 17 of them would have been occupied at any given time within the period. On the other hand, most of the large sites of this period probably date to the last half, or even last third, of the period (Wilshusen, this volume). Late Pueblo III (A.D. 12251290) lasts a maximum of 65 years, and tree-ring evidence indicates that building began to decline rapidly in the late A.D. 1270S and effectively ceased around A.D. 1280. The late Pueblo III centers probably had an average use life of 40 years (Mahoneyet al. 2000:70); hence, most would have been occupied contemporaneously during the 50-year span between A.D. 1225 and 1275. The 43 large sites assigned to early Pueblo III have a combined total of5,650 structures, for an average of 131 structures per site. This average rises to 155 structures for the 60 late Pueblo III sites. Because a higher proportion of community members lived in nearby small settlements in the earlier period, the increase in the average size of the later centers does not necessarily mean that the community increased in size. The largest central Mesa Verde region community centers are several times the average size. Yellow Jacket Pueblo, located in the eastern portion of the central Mesa Verde region, at the head of Yellow Jacket Canyon, has an estimated

215

216

WILLIAM D. LIPE

700 structures in both early and late Pueblo III. If we make the liberal assumption that Yellow Jacket Pueblo was occupied by 700 people, and the smaller settlements in the immediate vicinity included an equal number, the community would still total only 1500. Although this seems like a reasonable «upper limit" estimate for Yellow Jacket Pueblo, the number of people occupying small dispersed homesteads and hamlets in the vicinity of this and the other centers remains one of the largest uncertainties in estimating community sizes. This problem is greater for the earlier of the two periods being considered, when most communities were less aggregated. Varien (1999, this volume; Varien et al. 2000) has assembled cross-cultural evidence that in horticultural societies the most intensively cultivated fields lie within a 2-km radius of the primary residence. Taking topography and hence travel time into account, he drew «2 km equivalent" catchments around each community center (Varien 1999). Using data from several fully surveyed areas within the central Mesa Verde region, Mahoney et al. (2000) estimated the 2-km catchment population size for several communities (defined by clusters of residential sites and occurrences of public architecture). The results indicated that community sizes generally increased between the two periods of interest here. However, even if a 40-year use life is assumed for late Pueblo III, community sizes for that period ranged only between about 240 and 390 (Mahoneyet al. 2000:77-78). This is in the lower part of the range for historic eastern and western Pueblo villages. But what if spatial clusters of these residential (face-to-face) communities were in fact politically integrated? Clusters of community centers can be recognized by overlaps between their 2-km equivalent catchments (Varien 1999). Tables 10.1 and 10.2 show the results (also see Figures 10.1 and 10.2 for the location of clusters). It seems likely that centers this close together would have had to come to a political accommodation with one another, especially because some of their members would be living in the spaces between the centers. In early Pueblo III 5 clusters contain 11 sites; the remaining 32 sites have 2-km equivalent catchments that do not overlap with those of other centers. The two centers in the Alkali Ridge cluster have a total of 465 structures, still considerably below the level of the largest «isolated" center, Yellow Jacket Pueblo, with 700 structures. The average number of structures per cluster is 220, compared with 131 per individual center. When the list of 37 isolated community centers and clusters of centers is ranked by number of structures, the five clusters occupy positions 2, 6, IS, 16, and 18. Thus, the site clusters are well within the range of variability of the larger isolated community centers. Late Pueblo III community centers are both more numerous and more clustered than those in the previous period (cf. Varien 1999, this volume; Varien et al. 2000). Of the 60 centers listed, 30 are distributed among 9 clusters. The clusters average 357 structures, well above the 155 average for sites, when all 60 sites are considered. However, the two largest isolated sites-Yellow Jacket Pueblo and Goodman Point-Shields-have more structures than the largest

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

cluster, Upper Hovenweep. When the list of 39 sites and site clusters is ranked by number of structures, the clusters occupy positions 3, 5,8,9,12,14,15, and 17. Although the site clusters are in the upper half of the distribution, they are still within the range of variation of the larger isolated centers. There appears to have been a greater potential for political integration among neighboring community centers in late Pueblo III, but the population sizes involved did not exceed the maximum of the previous period. Instead, more centers and clusters occur at the upper end of the size range. Settlement Pattern Structure

Although there are more centers in late Pueblo III than previously, the number in southeastern Utah declines, and those at lower elevations in the Montezuma Creek and San Juan valleys drop out. Although the Alkali Ridge site group was the largest cluster in early Pueblo III, the only Utah cluster in late Pueblo III is Cottonwood Wash, and it is the smallest of the 11 clusters of that period. The only individual late Pueblo III center in Utah that exceeds 250 structures is Hedley Main Ruin, located just west of the Colorado border. By contrast, there is a substantial ((packing" of centers and clusters of centers in southwestern Colorado (Figures 10.1 and 10.2; also see Varien 1999:Figures 7.8 and 7.9). This process of central Mesa Verde region settlement concentration may have begun earlier, as the northern San Juan drainages east of the Mesa Verde were depopulated by the end of the A.D. 1050-1150 period, opening up a gap between the settlements of the central Mesa Verde region and the Mesa Verdean settlements clustered around Aztec Ruin in the San Juan Valley (Lipe and Varien 1999b). One possible explanation for this process of consolidation is the development of chronic warfare between major groups of communities in the Four Corners region. This might have resulted in the pulling together of the central Mesa Verde group of communities and the creation of unpopulated or thinly populated hinterlands separating them from major groups of communities in the Kayenta area (as suggested by Haas and Creamer 1993:137) or from the Totah region communities clustered around Aztec in the San Juan Valley. In late Pueblo III, however, low-density populations using Mesa Verde tradition pottery continued to occupy southeastern Utah (Mahoney et al. 2000; Matson et al. 1988; Varien et al. 1996), and in the Glen Canyon-Red Rock Plateau area, they were in apparently peaceful contact with populations using Kayenta tradition pottery (Lipe 1970; Lipe and Huntington 1969). Rather than interregional warfare, processes internal to the central Mesa Verde region were probably driving both population concentration and settlement aggregation. Lightfoot (1984) describes competition among emerging leaders as a process that can promote community growth and aggregation, as well as the accumulation of social power by individuals or groups. One of the primary ways that leaders can increase their power is by recruiting followers; this can result

21 7

WILLIAM D. LIPE

218

800 600

...

~

Q)

....

~

400

n; E

~

w !! ~

200

U

~

'-

m

...,

"-

n; "tS 100

....

80

"-

'- .......

" "-

60

~

.......

"

40 4

2

6

10

8

40

20

Site Size Rank: A. D. 1150-1225 Sites

800 600

Q)

400

", ......

10 E ~

,

' ...

" "-

w

~

"" '. .......

200

ts

'. "',

......

"-

~

'-

tiS

(ij

Figure 10.3. The ranksize distribution (log-log scale) for large sites dating to the A.D. 1150-1225 (top) and 1225-1290 (bottom) periods. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

1S t-

" ' ... ......

100 80 60 40 2

4

6

8 10

20

40

60

Site Size Rank A.D. 1225-1290 Sites

in larger settlements and ultimately in higher local and regional population densities. Lightfoot's (1984) model focuses on processes that result in power differentials in relatively egalitarian societies. Renfrew (1986), working with more complex societies, describes ways in which "peer-polity interaction" may promote sociopolitical elaboration and change. In both cases competition among neighboring polities can result in a kind of"arms-race" leading to population growth and more complex sociopolitical systems. It is possible that in the Pueblo III period leaders in the increasingly crowded and competitive social landscape of southwestern Colorado were actively recruiting followers from communities on the peripheries.

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

Rank-size analysis (Figure 10.3) provides a way to assess political and economic competition among communities, although its applicability to middlerange societies may be questioned. Johnson (1977, 1980) argues, however, that this type of analysis can be useful in detecting changes in regional-level relationships at a wide range of sociopolitical and demographic scales. In Figure 10.3 the rank-size distributions of all early and late Pueblo III community centers are compared; site clusters are excluded. Conventional interpretation of the rank-size rule is that a logarithmic plot of both settlement size and rank will be log-normal-that is, will follow the diagonal-if the settlement system is well integrated, with a developed hierarchy of political or economic functions assigned to settlements of different size. Johnson (1977:496-497) also cites studies in which it is argued that a lognormal distribution can be characteristic of regional systems in either the early or the late stages of economic development and that stochastic variation in factors affecting sizes of centers may also result in this type of distribution. Presence of a concave-upward rank-size distribution suggests dominance by a single «primate" settlement, whereas a convex-upward distribution suggests a poorly integrated system, with settlement size responding to a number of factors, frequently including the presence of several competitive systems (Johnson 1977, 1980). The rank-size distribution of all sites for early Pueblo III is clearly lognormal, whereas the later plot shows a shift toward convexity, implying the presence of multiple competitive settlement systems. With regard to the lognormal distribution for the early period, there is little other evidence to support the inference of a single well-integrated political and/or economic system for the entire region. Evidence is lacking that settlements of different size represent a hierarchy of different political or economic functions. This leaves us to attribute the log-normal distribution to «stochastic factors" and/or an "early stage of economic development" as default interpretations. Tables 10.1 and 10.2 include data on site clusters, as well as on spatially isolated sites. It is apparent that if the site clusters (instead of their component sites) were included in the rank-size plots, the one for early Pueblo III would be shifted somewhat in the direction of convexity, and the one for late Pueblo III would be much more convex. The main point to be drawn from these comparisons is that they indicate increasing independence (and probably competition) among communities and community clusters through time. The data on site sizes in Tables 10.1 and 10.2 also show some interesting differences between community centers that are in the proposed clusters and those that stand alone. In general, the sites that comprise the clusters are smaller than the mean for all sites, and this difference increases from early to late Pueblo III. For example, in A.D. 1150-1225, the average number of structures in a site cluster is 220, as opposed to 131 for the average number of structures per site, when all sites are considered. Yet the individual sites that are in clusters average 100 structures, whereas the isolated centers that are outside

21 9

WILLIAM D. LIPE

220

clusters average 142. In late Pueblo III the average center has 155 structures, whereas the average cluster has more than twice as many, at 357. However, isolated centers are almost twice as large-203 structures on average-than those occurring within clusters, which average 107. These data indicate that the largest community centers are not surrounded by groups of nearby smaller centers. The clusters, on the other hand, tend to be composed of smaller-than-average centers that are closely spaced. Thus there appear to be two modes of aggregation. In late Pueblo III both the largest individual centers and the largest clusters "top out" at about the same size-between about 500 and 700 structures. Table 10.2 shows there are five isolated centers in this group, and four site clusters; collectively, these nine aggregates account for about 56 percent of the total number of structures for this period. There is a substantial size gap of nearly 150 structures between these nine aggregates and the rest of the size distribution. A reasonable hypothesis is that the nine large centers and clusters of centers constituted the principal polities of the region in late Pueblo III. This does not imply that they must have had strongly hierarchical political institutions, although power differentials are likely to have been present. Even if each member of this group of "large" centers and clusters of centers were associated with dispersed habitations that doubled its number of structures, none would have had populations over the level of 1,500 that Adler and Varien (1994) report as a cross-cultural maximum for community size in nonstratified societies. There remain 30 small isolated centers and small site clusters in the lower part of the late Pueblo III size distribution. Some are on the western periphery of the central concentration, where settlement patterns are grading from aggregated to dispersed. The others are perhaps associated with one of the nine large centers or clusters noted above, or they may represent independent small polities. It also is possible that some of the settlement clusters should be broken apart. A glance at the size structure of the clusters listed in Table 10.2 indicates that several include one "dominant" site more than twice as large as the others (that is, a hypothetical sociopolitical center for the cluster), whereas the others do not. As noted above, however, the communities in these clusters are so closely spaced that some form of sociopolitical integration seems probable, and the numbers of people involved do not indicate that such integration would have had to be very centralized or hierarchicaL I can only suggest here that a number of additional studies of settlement structure could be done and that these might provide better insights into the sociopolitical landscape of the central Mesa Verde region.

Types and Distribution ofPublic Architecture The phrase public architecture is somewhat misleading because some of the buildings referred to undoubtedly were built to limit who could participate in

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

the activities that went on inside. The term is used here to refer to structures (or their intended absence, in the case of plazas) that differ from ordinary domestic structures. Mobilizing the effort to construct public architecture and establishing control over how it is used imply the exercise of social power by individuals or groups. Most of the data on public architecture in the central Mesa Verde region are from surface observations of varying comprehensiveness and quality, so it is likely that only the strongest patterns will emerge in a regional overview of this sort. Nonetheless, this is a potentially important source of evidence about the scale of social power and the modes by which it was exercised. Churchill et al. (1998) have recently attempted a broad overview of great kivas and multiwalled structures in the central Mesa Verde region, using approximately the same database employed here for the Pueblo III period; they also survey several earlier periods. Great kivas declined in frequency from 18 in late Pueblo II (A.D. 1050-1150) to 11 in early Pueblo III and 8 in late Pueblo III. During these same three periods the ratio of great kivas to community centers dropped from 1:2 to 1:7. Pueblo II and III great kivas are often completely or partially surrounded by what appear to be storage rooms, although there are examples where these are absent. Multiwalled structures, on the other hand, increased from 1 to 4 to 12 in these three periods, with occurrence per center increasing from 1 in 36 in late Pueblo II to 1 in 5 in late Pueblo III. The category "multiwalled structure" itself includes considerable variability. Most such structures from late Pueblo II and early Pueblo III have circular floor plans with either one or two sets of rooms surrounding a small central open space. Most from late Pueblo III are D-shaped buildings with a single row of rooms surrounding one or two interior courtyards. In some cases the interior space has one or two structures with circular floor plans, some of which appear to be kivas, whereas others are aboveground. In other cases the enclosed interior courtyard(s) are open or contain one or two aboveground circular structures. The trends documented by Churchill et al. (1998) indicate a shift from architectural types that are more inclusive (that is, great kivas, which can hold large numbers of people, although access to the associated storage rooms must have been restricted) to the D-shaped multiwalled structures, which can be accessed by relatively few people at a time. However, plazas also appear to have become more common in the later period. These range from quite accessible open areas bounded only by surrounding room blocks to somewhat less accessible areas enclosed by walls and usually associated with other types of public architecture (cf. Lipe and Ortman 2000). In general, public architecture is considerably more common and more types are present in late as opposed to early Pueblo III. Centers dating to the A.D. 1150-1225 period appear to consist predominantly of room blocks of ordinary habitation units, with the occasional great kiva as the primary type of nondomestic structure. By contrast, late Pueblo III centers fairly often have Dshaped structures and/or plazas; in addition, low walls enclosing all or parts of

221

222

WILLIAM D. LIPE

sites are quite common in this period, as are towers and tower complexes not associated with particular domestic units. At a few of the late centers there are blocks of small rooms that appear to lack kivas and that may represent storage facilities not associated with a specific household (Lipe and Ortman 2000). These are often difficult to identify from surface evidence, and some listed in Table 10.2 are questionable. On the other hand, the quality of data from the majority of late Pueblo III centers does not allow either presence or absence to be ruled out; there may be more examples than those listed. Roads or possible roads are associated with a few early and late Pueblo III centers, but these are hard to date; some may be from the A.D. 1050-1150 period. They do indicate either sequential or contemporaneous relationships between nearby centers, although most are too poorly preserved to indicate more than association with a particular center. Also, Chacoan-style great houses were built in the region in the late A.D. 1000S and early 1100S, and a few of these occur close to or even within Pueblo III centers. It is possible that these great houses continued to have some functions in Pueblo III, but this is difficult to determine from surface observations. Tables 10.1 and 10.2 show the distribution of some types of public architecture, based primarily on data assembled by Varien (Lipe and Varien 1999a, 1999b) and by Kelley (1996). Little if any patterning can be observed in the distribution of early Pueblo III public architecture. In particular, great kivas seem more likely to be associated with the smaller centers than with the larger ones. Perhaps this is because they were more often built in communities with relatively large dispersed populations and relatively small nuclear centers, but that is just a guess. Because of their size, great kivas require significant labor to build and then to maintain (Lightfoot 1988). If food was stored in the peripheral rooms, its acquisition, protection, and distribution must have been managed by an individual or small group. Rituals or other activities that took place in these structures would also have required organization. Even though these are large structures, most would probably not have held the entire population of the associated community, so some type of control was probably exerted over access and/or participation in rituals. Thus, the construction and use of great kivas implies the exercise of social power. For the late Pueblo III period the larger centers and clusters are more likely to have public architecture than are the smaller ones; of the 44 examples of such architecture listed in Table 10.2, 20 occur in the eight largest sites and clusters. On the other hand, nearly half the total structures occur in these eight sites and clusters, indicating that overall, the occurrence of public architecture is proportional to the occurrence of domestic structures. The largest isolated centers are somewhat more likely to have multiple types of public architecture than are equal-sized clusters, and unique examples of public architecture such as the Yellow Jacket Pueblo "great tower complex" occur only at the largest isolated centers. In late Pueblo III, great kivas are relatively rare and tend to occur in the

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

largest sites and structures, but there are exceptions. Room-dominated blocks (presumably nondomestic storage complexes) have been recognized at only a few large sites, most of which are not in clusters. Yellow Jacket Pueblo, the region's largest site during this period, has the distinctive «Great Tower complex" that consists of an oversized (5 m diameter) kiva surrounded by two-story rooms (Ortman et al. 2000). The second-largest individual center (Goodman Point-Shields) also has a distinctive building-a large circular bi- or tri-wall structure with four enclosed courtyards that may house small kivas. Yucca House, the third-largest isolated center, has a large rectangular walled plaza with a two-story row of rooms on the north side and a great kiva in the center (Glowacki 2001). D-shaped structures are found in both large and small centers and clusters in late Pueblo III but vary substantially in size and complexity. My impression is that the larger, more complex examples are more likely to occur in the larger centers or clusters. Plazas are found at both small and large sites and site clusters; their apparent distribution may be more affected by lack of consistent criteria for recognizing and recording them than is the case for most other types of public architecture. Bilateral spatial layout, presence of public or «civic" precincts where public architecture is grouped, and use of enclosing walls to surround all or parts of sites are features that occur, although not universally, at both large and small centers in late but not early Pueblo III. These features imply some level of planning and control of the location of both domestic and public architecture (cf. Bradley 199 2 a, 1993). The greater frequency and diversity of public architecture in late Pueblo III suggests more active mobilization and display of social power than in the previous period. The great kivas and walled plazas of this period imply some restrictions on access but can accommodate relatively large numbers of people. Some of the late Pueblo III great kivas apparently were unroofed and hence were more accessible than those of earlier periods (but an estimate by Ortman and Bradley [this volume] of the number of spectators that could have been

accommodated at the unroofed great kiva at Sand Canyon Pueblo is substantially less than the probable population of the community). The D-shaped structures are highly visible but appear designed to restrict access to a relatively few people at a time. Occurrence of ordinary-sized kivas in some of the Dshaped structures indicates these buildings were also residences (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). Because these are architecturally distinctive buildings that were often built in prominent locations such as on the edge of cliffs, they would draw attention to whoever lived there. On the other hand, many Dshaped buildings do not appear to have contained kivas or other structures that could have been used as residences. The occurrence of storage rooms as part of great kivas and D-shaped structures, as well as in room-dominated blocks and in the three unique complexes noted above, implies a significant capacity for extracting and distributing surplus food, at least at the largest late Pueblo III centers. The existence of multiple types of storage facilities and

223

WILLIAM D. LIPE

224

multiple types of public architecture may indicate multiple loci of social power within centers and clusters of centers. The somewhat greater concentration of public architecture at the largest isolated community centers suggests that these sites were more active arenas for the exercise of social power than were the centers that occur within large clusters. The higher potential for social conflict in the densely settled large single aggregates may have provided motivation and opportunities for individuals or groups to organize rituals, feasts, and other activities that would promote intracommunity harmony. The wide occurrence of D-shaped structures and some other forms of public architecture in small as well as large centers and clusters suggests that the display of social power was not monopolized by the largest polities. Within the clusters of community centers the distribution neither of site sizes nor of public architecture provides clear evidence for a hierarchy of centers within each cluster. These results do not indicate we are dealing with strongly hierarchical societies' but they do provide a variety of evidence that at least in late Pueblo III, individuals or groups had an increased ability to control the use of community space, mobilize fairly large construction efforts, accumulate and distribute stored food or other goods, and organize group rituals and assemblies. PERSPECTIVES FROM THE SAND CANYON LOCALITY As described by Varien and Wilshusen (this volume), the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center conducted surveys, testing, and intensive excavations in the Sand Canyon locality over a number of field seasons in the 1980s and 1990S. Ortman and Bradley (this volume) and Bradley (1992a, 1993) describe excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo, a large (estimated 530 structures) late Pueblo III

center. The other community center in the locality that was the subject of intensive excavations is Castle Rock Pueblo, a late Pueblo III site of about 65 structures located 8 km southwest of Sand Canyon Pueblo (Kuckelman, ed. 2000). It is not part of a cluster. Varien (ed. 1999) reports test excavations at small sites in the vicinity of Sand Canyon Pueblo, and Huber (1993; Huber and Lipe 1992) describes intensive excavations of part of a small mid-Pueblo III hamlet-Green Lizard-located in Sand Canyon between Sand Canyon Pueblo and Castle Rock Pueblo.

Architecture Sand Canyon Pueblo is a classic late Pueblo III south-facing canyon-rim site, bisected by an ephemeral drainage (Kelley 1996; Lipe and Ortman 2000). Although most of the buildings are room blocks composed of habitation units (Ortman and Bradley, this volume), there also is a substantial amount of public architecture. The site is enclosed on at least three sides by a low masonry wall that appears to have been built early in the settlement's construction his-

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

tory. Most significant is a central complex that consists of a plaza, a great kiva, a large D-shaped building with two kivas in its enclosed courtyards, and a room block consisting primarily of storage rooms (the 300 block). Both the great kiva and the D-shaped building are partially or completely surrounded by rooms that are part of these structures (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). These peripheral rooms lack floor features, and floors are often sloping bedrock, indicating they were used primarily for storage rather than habitation. The 300 block also appears to have been a storage complex containing perhaps 30 rooms (Bradley 1992a; Ortman and Bradley, this volume). These three complexes have more than 50 storage rooms, equaling the storage capacity of 10 to 20 habitation units. When the site-enclosing wall is considered as well, the public architecture at Sand Canyon Pueblo probably represents 10 to 15 percent of the construction effort at the site. The spatial association between the room-dominated 300 block, the plaza, the great kiva, and the D-shaped building suggests that management of central food stores (assuming that food is what in fact was stored) was given ceremonial sanction by rituals performed in the plaza, the great kiva, and the Dshaped building. Ortman and Bradley (this volume) review evidence that serving bowls were larger and more elaborately decorated at Sand Canyon Pueblo than at either earlier or contemporaneous small sites in the locality; they conclude that this indicates that Sand Canyon Pueblo was frequently the locus of feasts, probably held in conjunction with public rituals. The centralized storage facilities at the site would certainly have provided political-religious leaders with ample resources for hosting such feasts. Control of the central stores clearly would have been a significant source of social power. Mobilizing contributions from community members, protecting and monitoring the stores, distributing stored food, and maintaining the storage facilities all imply a significant level of authority. These tasks could not have been carried out effectively by large unstructured groups, or by the community as a whole. Surely there were lines of authority and responsibility leading to a relatively

few individuals, although these individuals may have been acting on behalf of larger entities such as sodalities or kin groups. Is there any evidence of who these powerful individuals might have been or where they lived? In the portion of the 300 block that was excavated it was found that a small kiva had been inserted into the room block sometime after it was built (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). Given that most small Mesa Verde kivas are residential, this could indicate that a household had moved into the block of storage rooms. Does this imply that a powerful household was asserting control over the complex, that whoever was in control ofthe complex had assigned someone to guard it, that the small kiva was only a symbolic «occupation;' or that the centralized storage system had broken down and the abandoned rooms were being reclaimed for other uses? The answer is not clear. The small kiva that was built here was the opposite of ostentatious, however; the addition was not done in a way that would draw undue attention.

225

WILLIAM D. LIPE

226

In the D-shaped structure Ortman and Bradley (this volume) note several lines of evidence indicating that the two interior kivas were used as domestic living rooms (as were the great majority of small «household" kivas in Pueblo II and Pueblo III Mesa Verdean sites). One of the kivas was unusual in having a large floor vault, although the vault was filled in before the end of the structure's use (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). Such vaults are uncommon in small late Pueblo III household kivas but appear widely through time and space in the Puebloan world and probably are elaborated ritual features related to sipapus (Wilshusen 1989). Muir (1999b; also see Ortman and Bradley, this volume) noted that remains of birds and other animals ethnographically important in ritual were found in deposits associated with the D-shaped structure but generally not in other contexts at the site. These pieces of evidence, plus the restricted access to the kivas, the location of the kivas within an architecturally distinctive and imposing building, and the direct association of these kivas with at least 14 surrounding storage rooms, all indicate that the occupants of the D-shaped building had significant social power. On the other hand, the kivas themselves are no larger or more formal in construction than ordinary household kivas, and both the kivas and the building as a whole employ the same strong north-south orientations found in ordinary habitations and in the layout of the site as a whole. As noted above, D-shaped buildings in the central Mesa Verde region are quite variable, and many appear not to have been used as residences. It is possible that their primary role was as a type of facility used by religious sodalities for storage of food and paraphernalia and for conducting certain rituals that involved only religious leaders. In some communities these religious leaders may have lived in or spent significant amounts oftime in the structure, whereas in other communities this was not the practice.

Ortman and Bradley (this volume; also see Huber 1993) review evidence that a small complex consisting of several excavated kivas, surface structures, and a tower in the 100 block were residences for community political-religious leaders. In addition to having several artifactual and feature indicators of ritual activity, the complex is deficient in storage space, suggesting that the persons who lived here were provisioned from stores kept elsewhere, perhaps from one of the three storage facilities noted above. Huber (1993) found that the architecture in this complex had a relatively high investment of labor relative to the two other kiva suites at Sand Canyon Pueblo and one at the Green Lizard site that he studied. He also noted that rim sherds from the 100 block also indicated larger-than-average serving bowls, which is consistent with increased hosting of guests by occupants of this complex (also see Ortman 2000a; Ortman and Bradley, this volume). Muir (1999b) reports that both the 100 block and the excavated portion of the 1000 block have unusually high proportions of artiodactyl bones in floor and roof deposits. Both complexes are built against the site-enclosing wall near the center of its arc in the northern part of the site and have D-shaped towers that extend outside the walL The 100 block is on the

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

eastern side of the drainage that bisects the site, and the 1000 block is about the same distance from it on the western side. Because of the unusual association of artiodactyl bones with structures in the 100 and 1000 block, Muir (1999b:159) argues that these two "tower units" may have been loci for the display of valuable large game animals obtained in communal hunts organized by political or religious leaders. On the other hand, as Ortman and Bradley (this volume) point out, these bone assemblages must represent behavior that took place at the very end of the site's occupation and may have more to do with events peculiar to the site's last days than with activities regularly associated with these complexes. Muir (1999b) notes that when only midden assemblages are considered, there is little differentiation among room blocks with respect to the frequency of artiodactyl remains, nor does Sand Canyon differ significantly from contemporaneous nearby small sites or from Castle Rock Pueblo. On the whole, however, multiple lines of evidence indicate that the excavated structures in the 100 block are likely to have been occupied by individuals or families having significant social power, which is consistent with interpretations made by Bradley (1992a, 1993) in earlier publications. Although the excavated portion of the 1000 block has a more "normal" complement of surface rooms, it has some unusual architectural features as well and appears to have been used as a burial place after it was no longer being occupied (Bradley 1992a). (The "displays" of game animals on the 1000 block tower roofs that Muir (1999b) refers to would also have taken place after this complex was no longer being lived in.) The excavated kiva suites in both the 100 block and the 1000 block may represent facilities occupied by leaders of sodalities or kin groups. As in the D-shaped building, the evidence suggests that such leadership would have been justified and exercised in the context of religious ideology and ritual. Only about 12 percent of the architecturally defined spaces at Sand Canyon Pueblo have been excavated (Ortman and Bradley, this volume), and there may well be complexes similar to those from the 100 and 1000 blocks elsewhere in the site. However, there is only one other D-shaped tower built against the outside of the site-enclosing wall, and it is associated with a small unexcavated kiva suite in the 200 block on the western side of the site, adjacent to the plaza. Wealth Items

So far, this chapter has focused on demographic, settlement-pattern, and architectural evidence but has had little to say about artifacts that might have advertised an individual's high status or ability to acquire exotic items. The artifactual database for Pueblo III excavated contexts in the Sand Canyon locality includes 40 occurrences of "exotic" material: 10 of jet, 3 of turquoise, 9 of obsidian, and 18 of shell. There are also 242 ornaments, most of them simple pendants or beads made of local material, including bone; 18 ornaments, however,

227

WILLIAM D. LIPE

228

Table 10.3.

Exotic Material and Ornaments Relative to Corrugated Sherds Exotic Materiala

Site Class

Number of Corrugated Sherds

Small Early and Mid-Pueblo III (5) Small Late Pueblo III (8) Castle Rock Pueblo Sand Canyon Pueblo All sites

17,903 22,205 18,161 76,678 134,952

Number

4 3 12 21 40

Ratio (x 100)

.022 .014 .066 .027 .030

Ornamentsb Number

Ratio (x 100)

20 49 18 155 242

.112 .221 .099 .202 .179

Note: Data as of 1994; minor changes in the database since then do not significantly affect the totals. aExotic materials: jet (10); obsidian (9); shell (18); turquoise (3). bOrnaments: beads (78); pendants (100); rings (1); bone tubes (63). Thirteen beads and two pendants are shell; three beads are turquoise; these are also counted in the tabulation of exotic materials.

are of the previously mentioned exotic materials. Table 10.3 displays the total inventory of exotics and ornaments recovered during 10 years of excavation on the Sand Canyon Archaeological Project, representing the sampling of 15 Pueblo III sites at various levels of intensity. The table also reports frequencies of corrugated sherds to provide a basis for comparison among sites or groups of sites. Table 10.3 shows that exotics and ornaments occur in very small frequencies, both absolutely and relative to corrugated sherds. The data are from four categories of archaeological contexts: a very large late Pueblo III community center, Sand Canyon Pueblo; a relatively small late Pueblo III community center, Castle Rock Pueblo; and two groups of small sites « 50 structures each), one consisting of five early to middle Pueblo III sites and the other composed of eight sites from Late Pueblo III. Considering allIS sites, the ratio of exotics to corrugated sherds is 0.030 (x 100), and that for ornaments is 0.179 (x 100). Castle Rock Pueblo is above average in the occurrence of exotics but below average in ornaments. The contemporary late Pueblo III center Sand Canyon Pueblo is about average in the occurrence of exotics and slightly above average in ornaments. None of the sites represented in Table 10.3 had disproportionately large amounts of exotics or ornaments. The ratios of turquoise (3 items) and shell (18 items) to total corrugated sherds are a paltry 0.002 (x 100) and 0.013 (x 100), respectively. By contrast, Phillips (1993:Table 1) reports much higher frequencies of turquoise and shell relative to sherds from Pueblo II (A.D. 920 to 1120) contexts at Chaco Canyon. Excavations by the Chaco Archaeological Project produced 869 pieces of turquoise and 203 occurrences of shell, relative to 246,266 sherds of all types (corrugated sherds plus other gray, white, and red wares). The ratio of turquoise to sherds is 0.353 (x 100), and that for shell is 0.082 (x 100). The Chaco Project counts reported by Phillips do not include a cache of turquoise

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

items or a deposit of turquoise debitage and hence underestimate the occurrence of turquoise. His data show, however, that in Pueblo II Chacoan contexts, turquoise was at least 177 times more common than in Pueblo III contexts in the Sand Canyon locality. Shell was at least 6 times more common in the Chaco Canyon collections. The extremely low frequencies of exotics and ornaments documented for the Sand Canyon locality, and the extremely modest nature of the ornaments, indicate that display of such items was not important in mediating social relations or in advertising differences in social power. Of course, we are dealing here only with imperishable items. If feathers were the currency of social status, we might not know it. On the other hand, no evidence of exotic birds such as parrots has been found. As noted, remains of a number of birds of prey and songbirds were found (Muir 1999b; Ortman and Bradley, this volume) in association with the D-shaped structure. These might have provided feathers used by the inhabitants of that structure as personal adornments, but a more likely inference is that these individuals (and perhaps others who had access to this structure) were using feathers from these birds in ritual paraphernalia. Although other lines of evidence indicate that substantial social power differentials existed at Sand Canyon Pueblo and between this site and others in the locality, its impoverished assemblage of exotics and ornaments indicate that social power was not signified by individual ornamentation. It apparently was important for individuals to appear not to be different from others, even if they were able to wield considerable social power by virtue of offices in sodalities or kin groups. The data on exotics and ornaments also indicate that this populous locality had relatively little trade with the "outside world;' an inference bolstered by equally tiny frequencies ofWhite Mountain Red Ware, Tsegi Orange Ware, and other non-Mesa Verdean ceramics that were widely traded in other parts of the upland Southwest. Throughout the central Mesa Verde area interregional exchange appears to have declined from late Pueblo II to Pueblo III (Lipe and Varien 1999b). In light of this evidence it does not appear that strategies of personal aggrandizement that relied on acquiring and displaying hard-to-get "prestige goods" were important at Sand Canyon Pueblo or other Pueblo III centers in the central Mesa Verde region.

Mortuary Associations Excavations on the Sand Canyon Project encountered relatively few formal burials, and Crow Canyon Center's archaeologists did not deliberately seek burials. Most human remains were found inside or adjacent to structures coincident with excavation of these structures. Most human remains from Castle Rock Pueblo were not formally buried and appear to have resulted from the massacre of most or all of the site's population at the end of its occupation,

229

WILLIAM D. LIPE

230

probably during the A.D. 1270S (Kuckelman et al. 2000,2002). At Sand Canyon Pueblo some human remains may have been deposited in the context of violence, but most had been respectfully interred (Bradley 1998; Kuckelman et al. 2002). None of these burials was accompanied by elaborate grave goods, and a number lacked grave offerings, at least of the type that would survive in the archaeological record. To my knowledge no exceptionally elaborate burials dating to the Pueblo III period have been reported from the central Mesa Verde region. This is consistent with the lack of emphasis on marking the social power of individuals that was shown by the data on exotic materials and ornaments reviewed above.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Evidence from both the Sand Canyon locality and the region indicates that social power differentials became more strongly and clearly expressed in late Pueblo III. In that period significant amounts of labor were mobilized to build and maintain several kinds of public architecture. Most strikingly, substantial amounts of nondomestic storage space were maintained. If food was stored in most ofthese spaces, this storing indicates that a substantial amount of surplus production was being generated and that its storage and distribution was controlled above the household level. These stores would have required consistent involvement of individuals or small groups having the authority to acquire, protect, and distribute them. At Sand Canyon Pueblo the association of large storage facilities with the plaza, great kiva, and D-shaped structure indicates that both public and restricted-access rituals provided the ideological and behavioral context in which this authority was established and exercised. Higher frequencies of large, elaborately decorated serving bowls at Sand Canyon Pueblo suggest that stored food was likely distributed at public feasts (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). These would have been occasions at which the social power of those responsible for hosting and food distribution was validated. The population sizes of community centers and local polities appear to have increased from early to late Pueblo III; this development could have both promoted and been promoted by an elaboration of ritual and food distribution. Population estimates indicate that in late Pueblo III the sizes of communities and local polities nonetheless were relatively small; the largest probably did not exceed 1,000 to 1,500 people even when liberal assumptions are made about numbers of structures in use at the same time and numbers of people living outside the nuclear villages. The increased spatial "packing" of settlement in late Pueblo III provides a context that could have promoted a higher level of regional political integration or, alternatively, an increase in competition among local polities. The data suggest the latter. The maximum size of local polities did not increase much if at all over the previous period, but a number of polities grew to be about the

SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

same size as the largest. No single center or cluster stands out as having been the "capital" of the region in late Pueblo III. The settlement data for this period indicate two modes of aggregation-one into single large villages, the other into clusters of smaller villages. There are five large spatially isolated centers and four clusters of spatially contiguous smaller centers in late Pueblo III, all having between about 500 and 700 structures. The remaining 30 isolated centers and clusters all have 350 structures or fewer. Several lines of evidence indicate that warfare increased and became more deadly in Late Pueblo III. This may have promoted the tighter integration of local polities and hence the greater expressions of social power that have been reviewed here. Increased social, demographic, and economic competition among equally strong polities may also have promoted warfare. Chronic warfare would have made smaller polities outside the nine largest ones vulnerable to attack, at least if hostilities were generalized and not just focused on competition among the larger polities. The occurrence of clearly defensive sites even in low population density areas of southeastern Utah (Lipe 1970) and the massacre of the residents of Castle Rock Pueblo, a small isolated center south of Sand Canyon Pueblo (Kuckelman et aL 2000, 2002), indicate that hostilities were in fact quite widespread. This should have promoted the formation of alliances between larger and smaller polities, at least in the more heavily populated parts of the central Mesa Verde region. The regional survey presented here was not able to detect such relationships if the centers in question did not fall into one of the clusters defined on the basis of spatial patterning. As noted, the large late Pueblo III community centers and clusters of centers do not appear to have been part of a hierarchically organized regionwide polity. Likewise, the distribution of public architecture and site sizes within the large late Pueblo III community clusters does not indicate a clearly hierarchical relationship among the communities included in these clusters. At Sand Canyon Pueblo three different sets of supradomestic storage facilities are associated with three different types of ritually important spaces (great kiva, plaza,

and D-shaped structure). These lines of evidence suggest the possibility that there were multiple centers of power both within and among local polities. Power relationships at both the local and regional levels are likely to have been rather fluid although more constrained by social expectations and norms at the local leveL One of the most striking findings of the extensive excavations carried out in the Sand Canyon locality is the near absence of artifactual, architectural, or mortuary evidence for individual political aggrandizement. Several lines of evidence indicate that the acquisition and exercise of social power at Sand Canyon Pueblo ordinarily was represented as service to a group-likely a kin group, a sodality, or the community as a whole. The regional evidence supports this interpretation as welL Whatever the effects of warfare in late Pueblo III, it does not seem to have promoted the appearance of highly visible "maximum leaders."

231

WILLIAM D. LIPE

A glance at Feinman's characterization of the network-corporate dimension of sociopolitical organization (Feinman 2000; also see the discussion earlier in this chapter) indicates that the Pueblo III communities of the central Mesa Verde region are strongly on the corporate side of this continuum. This mode of implementing social power characterizes both early and late Pueblo III but becomes intensified as social power differentials increase in late Pueblo III. To put it in Feinman's terms, in late Pueblo III, central Mesa Verdean social systems became somewhat more hierarchical on the egalitarian-hierarchical dimension but remained steadfastly on the corporate side of the network-corporate dimension (Feinman 2000:Figure 12.2). Finally, if leadership in kin groups and/or religious sodalities did depend in part on the power to store and redistribute surplus food production, then a decline in that production would have undermined those relationships. Even if the climatic problems of the late A.D. 1200S (Dean and Van West, this volume) did not result in disastrous crop failures, they might have created conflicts between the households that produced the crops and those individuals or groups whose social power depended on these households continuing to contribute a surplus for centralized storage and redistribution. These conflicts might have weakened the social and ideological order in ways that made communities more vulnerable to warfare or that made emigration seem an attractive option. A number of elements of late Pueblo III architecture and settlement planning apparently were given up by those central Mesa Verde residents who migrated to areas farther south (Lipe and Lekson 2001; Reed 1956). The elements that "did not make the move" include the small household kiva; D-shaped structures; complexes of canyon-rim towers; strong north-south directional symbolism expressed in both habitations and settlements; and bilateral layout of village-sized settlements. This suggests that the migrations were accompanied by social and cultural changes that probably affected the particular ways in which social power was mobilized and expressed, although perhaps not the general position of the resulting postmigration societies on Feinman's two dimensions.

11 Thirteenth-Century Warfare in the Central Mesa Verde Region KRISTIN

A. KUCKELMAN

vidence that warfare occurred in the thirteenth century both within the Sand Canyon locality and across the central Mesa Verde region in general is unmistakable. There is evidence that warfare not only occurred in the northern San Juan area during the thirteenth century but that conflict and violence escalated significantly during this time, especially after A.D. 1250 (Haas 1990; Haas and Creamer 1996; LeBlanc 1998, 1999; LeBlanc and Rice 2001; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 1995; Morris 1939:42; Schaafsma 2000:160-161; Wilcox and Haas 1994:236). This warfare was apparently part of a larger pattern of violence that extended across the Southwest during that period and has been studied by numerous researchers (e.g., Crotty 2001; Haas 1990; Haas and Creamer 1996; Keeley 2001; Kuckelman et a1. 2000; LeBlanc 1999; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001; Lipe and Varien 1999b:338-339; Oliver 2001; Rice 2001; Schaafsma 2000; Simon and Gosser 2001; Tuggle and Reid 2001; Wallace and Doelle 2001; Wilcox and Haas 1994; Wilcox et a1. 2001a). The occurrence of warfare in the ancient Southwest is not surprising given that, as cross-cultural studies have shown, nearly all societies engage in war often (Ember 1993:3; Keeley 2001:334), and the prevalence and importance of war in prestate societies has been discussed at length by Keeley (1996). This ubiquity and the profound impacts of warfare obligate us to study the causes, effects, and roles of warfare in human societies. The goal of this chapter is to summarize and synthesize the existing evidence of thirteenth-century warfare in the Sand Canyon locality and the central Mesa Verde region and to consider the possible effects of warfare on the lives and cultural systems of the ancient Pueblo Indians who lived in the region during that time. The term warfare has been defined and used many ways. For the purposes of this chapter I use Ferguson's (1984:5) definition of warfare as "organized, purposeful group action, directed against another group that mayor may not

E

233

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

234

be organized for similar action, involving the actual or potential application of lethal force." This definition excludes individual violence, such as homicide and domestic violence, but implies no particular level of organizational complexity or use of specific military tactics.

INDICATORS OF WARFARE What types of data in the archaeological record are indicative of warfare? Recent studies of prestate warfare in the Southwest (Ferguson 1997:325; Haas and Creamer 1996; Keeley 2001:339; Kuckelman et aL 2002; LeBlanc and Rice 2001:15-17; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001; Neitzel 1999:Table 14.9) have used one or more of the following as indicators of the presence of warfare: (1) aggregation of population, (2) use of defensible locations, (3) defensive architecture and site configurations, (4) development of unoccupied zones separating clusters of settlements, (5) burned structures, (6) postmortem neglect of human remains, (7) weapons, (8) evidence of scalping and other trophy taking, (9) artistic representations ofwarfare, (10) oral traditions ofwarfare, (11) physical evidence of violent death, and (12) anthropophagy. The likelihood that warfare occurred increases with the number of the above types of evidence that are present. LeBlanc and Rice (2001:17-18) point out also that the appearance of warfare indicators in an area where they were not in evidence previously strengthens the argument for warfare.

EVIDENCE OF WARFARE WITHIN THE SAND CANYON LOCALITY AND THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION Many of the above indicators ofwarfare dating from the thirteenth century have been recorded in the Sand Canyon locality and the central Mesa Verde region (Figure 1.2). There is a great deal of indirect evidence of warfare, much of which results from defensive actions, and direct evidence, much of which results from offensive actions.

Aggregation ofPopulation The movement of the population of the central Mesa Verde region into aggregated villages during the thirteenth century has been extensively documented (e.g., Adler 1990, 1994; Lipe and Varien 1999b; Mahoney et aL 2000; Varien 1999; Varien et aL 1996). Haas and Creamer (1996) and Wilcox and Haas (1994) have demonstrated a correlation between population aggregation and evidence for increased conflict during this time across the northern Southwest, and numerous researchers have interpreted aggregation as evidence of conflict in central and southern Arizona (Rice and LeBlanc 2001). In the Sand Canyon locality, large villages such as Sand Canyon and Goodman Point pueblos

235

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

KEY Str

StNcture Bedrock CJ Boulder Datum (rebar in concrete) If' ~ Wall (width mapped) .':,,~':,,~ Inferred waH

LZJ

"---'"'" Retaining/enclosing wall (width not mapped)

_ .. Drainage Inferred Inferred limits of midden Site boundary

C 1999 by Crow canyon Archaeological center All rights reserved

Figure 11.1. Plan map of Castle Rock Pueblo. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center

(Figure 1.2) and smaller villages such as Castle Rock Pueblo (Figure 11.1) were constructed. In the central Mesa Verde region as a whole, Varien (1999:Table 7.3) identifies 59 community-center villages, including many well-known cliff

dwellings in Mesa Verde National Park, and maintains that the majority of the population was living in these aggregated villages (Varien 1999:149). The reasons for population aggregation at that time are probably complex (see Cordell 1996; Kohler 1989), but, given other evidence of conflict across the region, it is likely that one of the factors that influenced families to resettle in larger groups was the threat of being attacked. The defensive advantages of aggregating, that is, the amassing of human strength with which to repel enemies, have been pointed out (Crown et al. 1996:200-201; Haas and Creamer 1996:209-210; Kidder 1924; LeBlanc 1999; Reid et al. 1996:77; Tuggle and Reid 2001). The offensive advantages of aggregating, that is, amassing greater strength with which to attack other groups, have received less attention but might have been important as well.

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

Use ofDefensible Locations Both within the Sand Canyon locality and across the region, the majority of habitations were constructed in defensible locations during the thirteenth century. Many people moved to build canyon-rim villages or villages within cliff overhangs, and most of these villages either enclosed or were near a spring (Lipe 1995:155; Varien et al. 1996:98). Sand Canyon and Goodman Point pueblos are examples of canyon-rim villages within the locality, and Cannonball Ruin, Hedley Ruin, Cow Canyon Pueblo, Yellow Jacket Pueblo, and many of the Hovenweep sites are examples of this strategy across the region. An upper limit for the size of the associated village might have been dictated by the rate of flow of the spring. By the mid-to-Iate 1200S most dependable springs were probably under the control of an associated village, so being able to mobilize enough warriors to successfully defend a village and its water source would have been critical to survival, as being defeated or driven out would have meant the loss of home and fields, as well as loss of one's water source. Another type of defensible location was exploited at Castle Rock Pueblo, where the village was constructed on top of and around the base of a prominent butte (Kuckelman, ed. 2000, Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001). There also appear to be locations that were used for defensive purposes but were not inhabited. The use of such locations is indicated by the presence of, for example, isolated towers, many of which are perched precipitously on, or wedged protectively within, what would seem to be strategic positions. Also, some alcoves contain no evidence of use except a wall with loopholes that was constructed across the front of the alcove; these alcoves could have been used as refuges.

Defensive Architecture and Site Configurations A great deal of defensive architecture was constructed during this time in the locality and the region and includes access-restrictive structures, towers, tunnels between kivas and other structures, structures adjacent to natural barriers, possible parapets, and loopholes. The following access-restrictive architecture has been recorded in the region: (1) construction that blocks or limits access into an architectural block, cliff dwelling, or between areas of a cliff dwelling; (2) structures in alcoves and on canyon rims, buttes, ledges, and boulders; (3) multistory structures; (4) village-enclosing walls and other types of extramural walls (e.g., KenzIe 1997). Many structures at Hovenweep contain excellent examples of accessrestrictive features such as multiple stories and a minimal number of groundfloor doorways, and these doorways are in difficult-to-reach locations. Multistory structures were not only access-restrictive but served an additional defensive purpose: they would have provided the occupants a valuable height advantage over attackers on the ground. An increased number of towers were constructed during this time (Varien, ed. 1999), and these structures could

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

have served defensive purposes (Farmer 1957; Hibben 1948:36; Kuckelman 2000a:pars. 33-38; Lancaster and Pinkley 1954:44-47; Mackey and Green 1979; Schulman 1950; Wilcox and Haas 1994:218), that is, as lookouts or signaling stations or for combat. If used as signaling stations, these structures could be important evidence of political alliances between settlements. The positioning of towers in overlook locations such as canyon rims, butte tops, and so forth would be consistent with their use as lookout or signaling stations, whereas the presence of multiple towers within one site would be consistent with their use as defensive structures. Tunnels that connected kivas and other structures would have provided a protected emergency escape route from the kivas and would also have allowed for protected movement between kivas and the structures they were linked to during threat of attack or in the event of a siege. Buildings that were partly formed by a natural geologic feature, such as an alcove wall, a cliff face, butte face, or boulder, for example, were defensive in that they could be attacked from fewer directions; in some instances geologic features such as boulders also provided lookout positions. Parapets might have been constructed on the top of strategically located structures (Kuckelman 2000a:par.29; Lancaster and Pinkley 1954:45). Loopholes (small apertures in walls) were common (Varien et aL 1996:99) and were openings through which approaching outsiders could have been safely viewed or through which, in some cases, an arrow could have been shot. Defensive site configurations within the region include placement of towers in strategic locations within a village, for example at the four corners of the great tower complex at Yellow Jacket Pueblo (site 5MT5) (Figure 2.1), at the edges of the village at Castle Rock (Figure 11.1) (Kuckelman 2oooa), or attached to the outside face of the enclosing wall at Sand Canyon Pueblo (Figure 3.1). Sand Canyon Pueblo itself was also defensively configured-this village wrapped around a canyon head and was protected by a substantial enclosing wall with few openings (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). .

Buffer Zones These habitable areas between communities that are essentially devoid of population are also referred to as "no-man's lands." These areas commonly develop as a result of victims moving to escape their enemies (Keeley 1996:111). In Keeley's (1996:Table 7.2) cross-cultural sample of prestate tribes these zones varied from 0.6 mi to 100 mi in width, with width correlating inversely with population density. Archaeological evidence suggests the possibility that buffer zones developed in the thirteenth century in the eastern Kayenta region (Dean 1996b:36), as well as in other areas of the Southwest (Wilcox and Haas 1994; Wilcox et aL 2001a, 2001b). Lipe and Varien (1999b:338) note that the late-thirteenth-century appearance of an empty zone between the settlements of the Animas-San Juan and the villages in the central Mesa Verde region is consistent

237

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

with an interpretation of warfare. Varien)s (1999) tracking of regional population movements through time holds potential for delineating smaller buffer zones between community clusters within the region.

Burned Structures

The presence of burned structures has been widely, and rightfully, cited as evidence of warfare in the ancient Southwest (LeBlanc 1998, 1999, 2001:28; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:62; Morris 1939:42; Oliver 2001; Tuggle and Reid 2001:93; Wilcox and Haas 1994), and it is likely that structures were set afire as part of warfare events in the central Mesa Verde region during the thirteenth century. Structural burning relating to warfare in the northern Southwest has been most strikingly evidenced in the Largo-Gallina sites, in north central New Mexico (Mackey and Green 1979); the structural burning at Salmon Ruin, in northwestern New Mexico (Irwin-Williams 1980:154; Shipman 1980; Turner and Turner 1999:326-331), also appears to have been related to warfare. However, few incidents of warfare-related burning have been firmly dated to the thirteenth century in the central Mesa Verde region (Kuckelman et al. 2000:150). And although numerous structures in the Sand Canyon locality contain evidence of burning, the precise relationship between structure burning and warfare is not at all clear. Careful consideration of the stratigraphic record indicates that this relationship was more complex than it might appear on the surface. There is some evidence of warfare-related burning at Castle Rock Pueblo, which was destroyed by warfare sometime after A.D. 1274. Our testing revealed that a portion of nearly every kiva roof in the village had been burned to some extent; however, these roofs burned only in localized areas which, in most cases, did not include primary beams (Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:62). It is not clear what the purpose of such a small amount of burning would have been; thus, exactly when the roofs were set afire and by whom is open to question. The notable exception at Castle Rock is structure 101 (Figure 11.1), which contained more abundant and larger-diameter burned beams, along with the slightly burned remains of a violently dispatched adult male. Even though the evidence indicates that this individual was already deceased when the burning roof collapsed, the burning of the structure does appear to have been associated with warfare. Burning of structures at Sand Canyon Pueblo has also been cited as evidence of warfare. A few structures in this village had been burned fairly intensively, as documented by our testing, but there was no evidence of widespread burning of the village, nor is it likely that much, if any, of the burning was associated with warfare. Of 112 structures tested or completely excavated at the site, 18 (16 percent) contain some burned roofing material. If one considers only the kivas, a greater percentage of structures (13 of 23 kivas tested, or 57 percent) contained some burned roofing material. However, nearly all of the

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

tested structures that contain burned roofing material at the site contained only a small amount of this material, and in all but one of the 18 structures that contained burned roofing material, this material does not rest on the floor but is above an unburned stratum that rests on the floor. The stratigraphic position of the burned roofing material thus indicates that, of the burned structures tested in this village, all but one (structure 501) stood abandoned for a significant amount of time before the roof was burned. Attackers are not likely to have restricted their burning to abandoned structures. Warfare is thus one possible cause of structural burning as evidenced in the archaeological record and probably was the cause of the thirteenth-century burning of the Largo-Gallina sites and the tower at Salmon Ruin. Structure burning also was reportedly a strategy used during the inter-Pueblo destruction of Awatovi in 1700 (Brew 1949:21; James 1974:63; Lomatuway'ma et al. 1993:401; Turner and Turner 1999) and at Sikyatki (James 1974:26; Lomatuway'ma et al. 1993:147) in the 1500S (Lomatuway'ma et al. 1993:119) and has been reported for a number of early Pueblo IV sites on the Colorado Plateau (LeBlanc 1998:Tables 7.1, 7.2). Burning the roof of an earth-covered subterranean structure is not a straightforward task (Wilshusen 1986); however, there are historic accounts of how this was accomplished at Awatovi (e.g., James 1974:63; Lomatuway'ma et al. 1993:401; Turner and Turner 1999:74-75) and Sikyatki (James 1974:26; Lomatuway'ma et al. 1993:147). These descriptions lead to the conclusion that the occupants of structures that were set afire probably died of smoke inhalation. The roofs apparently caught fire eventually; this was part of the physical destruction of the village. This type of structural burning would presumably have resulted in burned vegetal material and a substantial quantity of burned roofing material coming to rest directly on structure floors, and in many cases human remains that were at least partly burned would also rest on the floors. The evidence of structural burning observed in the Sand Canyon locality thus does not fit the expected archaeological result of an Awatovi-type warfare event. It is, in fact, not clear from the evidence at hand who set the structural fires at Sand Canyon and Castle Rock pueblos or when the fires were set or for what reason. It is possible that the burning of abandoned structures at Sand Canyon Pueblo and the limited structural burning that occurred at both Sand Canyon and Castle Rock pueblos occurred as part of a ritual «closing" of the structures (Billman et al. 2000:157; Lightfoot 1993:298; Lipe 1995:157; Lipe and Varien 1999b:338; Wilshusen 1986) or was somehow related to the salvaging of primary beams for reuse. The contexts and characteristics of much of the structural burning in the northern Southwest clearly need a closer look, but at this point the evidence suggests that there were at least three purposes for which structures were intentionally burned: (1) to ritually «close" the structure for whatever reason; (2) to kill the occupants during a warfare event; or (3) to destroy the structure during a warfare event. Of course, the last two purposes are not mutually exclusive. Most evidence of structural burning at Castle Rock

239

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

240

appears characteristic of ritual closing, although structure 101 (mentioned above) might have been intentionally destroyed as part of a warfare event. The evidence from Sand Canyon Pueblo also better supports the «closure" interpretation, although it is possible that one kiva (structure 501) burned during a warfare event. In conclusion, little of the structural burning documented thus far for thirteenth-century Sand Canyon locality appears likely to have occurred during a warfare event.

Postmortem Neglect Postmortem neglect is the failure to bury, cremate, or otherwise respectfully dispose of the dead (Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:62). This neglect can be an indicator of warfare, especially when found with additional, corroborating evidence of violence, such as at Awatovi (Fewkes 1898:610, 612). Remains of bodies dating from the thirteenth century that were subjected to postmortem neglect have been found within the Sand Canyon locality at Castle Rock and Sand Canyon pueblos (Bradley 1998; Kuckelman 2000b; Kuckelman et al. 2000; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 1994, 1995, 2001), as well as across the region (Lambert 1999:141; Morris 1939:42, 82; Nordenskiold 1979:170; Turner and Turner 1999). Nonformally buried remains representing at least 41 individuals were found during testing at Castle Rock Pueblo (Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:62) and the nonformally buried remains of at least 16 individuals were found during testing at Sand Canyon Pueblo. LeBlanc and Rice (2001:15) state that Castle Rock is «without a doubt the most solid example of the presence of nonformally buried bodies and warfare in the Southwest."

Weapons Projectile and shock weapons were used offensively and shields were used defensively in ancient warfare in the northern Southwest. Evidence of specific offensive weapons includes arrow points embedded in bone and in characteristics of cranial depression fractures. The presence of an arrow point that became embedded in bone around the time of death is strong evidence of warfare. Medical reports from modern and recent historic groups that engage in low-technology warfare practices indicate that the most deadly projectile injuries are those to the thorax and the abdomen, areas that would seldom result in observable damage to bones (Lambert 1997:92). The range of projectile weapons is much greater than for shock weapons, but projectile weapons are much less accurate. The assumption that the bow and arrow was used as a weapon during the thirteenth century in the northern Southwest is almost certainly valid, and there is at least some direct physical evidence to substantiate it (Turner and Turner 1999:337, Figure 3.158). One instance of an embedded projectile point from the wider central Mesa Verde region (Alkali Ridge) (Brues 1946:328) could date from the thirteenth century (Brew 1946:285-289); how-

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

ever, I could find no cases of embedded points from the central region from that time. This may be because the bow was not an especially lethal weapon (Rice 2001:299) or because of the fairly specific circumstances required in order for an arrow point to become embedded in bone. Also, village enclosing walls, other defensive walls, and warrior shields were probably effective protection against this projectile weapon. Few ancient basketry shields have been found in the northern Southwest, but those few date from the Pueblo III period (Morris and Burgh 1941:41, fig. 30g, 31f; Schaafsma 2000:9). These shields were presumably used as defensive weapons and were probably very effective protection against projectiles such as arrows. They would have been somewhat less effective against a persistent attacker with a hafted axe or a club, but would have been better than no defense at all. There is substantial evidence that shock weapons were used in this region during that period. Both perimortem and antemortem depression fractures of the skull have been found in numerous assemblages, at Castle Rock and Sand Canyon pueblos in the Sand Canyon locality (Kuckelman 2001; Kuckelman et al. 2002) and in the wider region as well (Cattanach 1980:415; Lambert 1999:141; Morris 1939:42,52). These wounds tend to be small, elliptical in plan, and have been attributed to blows from hafted axes or clubs (Kuckelman 2001; Lambert 1999:159). The clear superiority of shock weapons over projectile weapons in accuracy and striking power has been discussed by Keeley (1996:49-51) and Rice (2001:299). Axes are widely inferred to have been used as weapons in the Southwest during both ancient (Cattanach 1980:415; LeBlanc 1999:113; Morris 1924:194) and historic times (Lomatuway'ma et al. 1993:399; Stephen 1969:95; Titiev 1992: 66; Woodbury 1954:42). Woodbury (1954:40-42) states that the Hopi stone axe was used as a weapon in addition to its uses for chopping down trees and shaping stones. Titiev (1992:66) states in his description of Hopi native warfare that "the War chief led his men into action with no other weapon than a stone axe."

Stephen (1969:95) relates that Hopi war weapons were formerly (before 1893) bow and arrow, spear, nodule club, stone axe, and oak club. Many of these objects would have been too blunt to have caused the small, elliptical perforations of many of the depression fractures on the skulls from Castle Rock and Sand Canyon pueblos. It seems most likely that these holes would have been caused by contact with a corner of an axe head. War clubs were used to deliver lethal blows to the crania by nineteenthcentury Pima (Rice 2001:299-300). Rice (2001:300) makes the important point that a height increase of as little as a meter provides a considerable advantage in club-to-club combat; that is, the combatant in the higher position can keep his head out of reach of his enemy's weapon while swinging his own club with more momentum. This would have applied to hafted axes as well, and could have been an important bit of physics for thirteenth-century warfare; residents of Castle Rock Pueblo, for example, would have enjoyed an upslope position

241

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

242

during an attack from virtually any direction, and the relatively low siteenclosing walls at this site and so prevalent across the region during that time (KenzIe 1997) appear much more serviceable in this light. In any case the evidence indicates that shock weapons such as axes and clubs used in hand-tohand combat were used widely during thirteenth-century warfare in the central Mesa Verde region.

Scalping and Other Trophy Taking Evidence of scalping has been found in numerous precontact assemblages from the northern Southwest (Baker 1994:37; France 1988; Hurst and Turner 1993:169; Lambert 1999:141; Malville 1989; Turner and Turner 1999; White 1992). Warfare-related scalping dates from as early as the Basketmaker II period (1000 B.C. to A.D. 500) in the northern San Juan region (Hurst and Turner 1993:169), and scalping and other trophy taking were common to nearly all pueblos (Ellis 1951; Lomatuway'ma et al.1993:403; Parsons 1974:139, 1996; Titiev 1992:161). There is evidence that scalping and other trophy taking such as decapitation and face removal occurred as part of warfare in the Sand Canyon locality during the thirteenth century (Kuckelman et al. 2002). Face removal and scalping probably occurred at Sand Canyon Pueblo, and there is evidence of face removal, decapitation, and possible scalping at Castle Rock Pueblo. The association of scalping marks on a cranium with other evidence of violence, such as skull fractures or other skeletal trauma, is clear evidence of warfare.

Artistic Representations ofWarfare Schaafsma (1980:344) states that, unlike other types of data, rock art provides us with ((an expression of the thought systems to which the artists belonged" and provides us with a native «voice" (Schaafsma 2000:ix). As such, rock art can furnish archaeologists with an important, independent line of evidence of warfare. Militaristic imagery in the rock art of the ancient Puebloans first appeared in the thirteenth century, predominantly in the Kayenta region of southeastern Utah and northeastern Arizona (Crotty 2001:65; Schaafsma 2000:9,159). Shield bearers and large, shieldlike images were commonly depicted in the Kayenta area during that time (Schaafsma 1980:171), especially after A.D. 1250 (Crotty 2001:65,66), and have also been found in Cliff Palace in the central Mesa Verde region (Cole 1990:141). In the canyon lands of eastcentral Utah, bows and arrows, shield-figures, and other shield images were common themes between A.D. 900 and 1300 (Cole 1990:164). Shield imagery has been interpreted by some researchers as possibly militaristic (Cole 1990: 147; Crotty 2001:80; Schaafsma 2000), although other possible inferences have also been suggested (Crotty 2001:80). Within the Sand Canyon locality a petroglyph with a militaristic theme was pecked into the south face of the butte at

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

Castle Rock Pueblo (Kuckelman 2000c:Figure 1; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:Figure 3.5), probably during the latter half of the thirteenth century. This panel, depicting anthropomorphic figures holding drawn bows (Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:57), clearly conveys a theme of armed conflict and indicates that warfare was part of the ((thought systems" of the residents of the region.

Oral Traditions ofWarfare Oral histories can be an important source of information regarding warfare. The stories of the destruction of historic pueblos of Awatovi (Brew 1949:20-24; Fewkes 1898:610, 612; James 1974:61-64; Lomatuway'ma et al.1993; Turner and Turner 1999:72-77) and Sikyatki (James 1974:26; Lomatuway'ma et al. 1993) are excellent examples of this. An oral history recorded in 1874 of an ancient battle that purportedly decimated the population of Castle Rock Pueblo has been quoted in its entirety elsewhere (Kuckelman 2000d; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:54-56). This account provides additional evidence of the warfare in the central Mesa Verde region just prior to regional depopulation in the thirteenth century.

Physical Evidence ofViolent Death The most incontrovertible evidence of warfare is physical indication of violent death, especially when present on the remains of multiple individuals in associated contexts. Physical indications include lethal skull fractures and embedded projectile points with no evidence of healing. As previously stated (see «Weapons"), I know of no perimortem embedded projectile points from the central portion of the Mesa Verde region dating from the thirteenth century; however, numerous instances of skulls with lethal fractures have been published. Morris (1939:42) and Nordenskiold (1979:170; Turner and Turner 1999: 78-81) allude to such remains from the central Mesa Verde region that date from the thirteenth century, and McNitt (1966:75) tells of another that might date from that time; however, professional documentation of these assemblages and contexts is lacking. Carefully documented cases in the central Mesa Verde region include remains from site 5MT9943, which is in the Cowboy Wash area just south of Ute Mountain (Figure 1.2), and Castle Rock and Sand Canyon pueblos in the Sand Canyon locality. Lambert (1999:141) reports that at site 5MT9943 the remains of four individuals with perimortem cranial fractures were found, and cut marks suggestive of scalping were noted on the skull of one of these individuals. Physical evidence of violent death from Castle Rock and Sand Canyon pueblos is abundant and indicates that a minimum of five individuals at Castle Rock and six individuals at Sand Canyon Pueblo were the victims of lethal skull fractures (Kuckelman 2001:Table 2; Kuckelman et al. 2002). Contextual

243

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

244

evidence described for these sites in the above discussions of indirect evidence of warfare corroborates an interpretation of warfare as the cause of these injuries.

Anthropophagy

Recent findings suggest that anthropophagy (the consumption of human flesh) was associated with at least one incident of warfare in the central Mesa Verde region (Kuckelman et al. 2002). Characteristics of the human remains, the contexts in which they were found, and positive results of human myoglobin tests performed on associated vessels from Castle Rock Pueblo suggest that anthropophagy was associated with a fatal attack on the village in the late 1200S (Kuckelman et al. 2002). White (1992:361) posits that internecine warfare caused by famine could result in anthropophagy. Anthropophagy might thus be considered an indicator of warfare, if associated with other indicators of warfare.

UBIQUITY OF WARFARE IN THE REGION It is difficult to assess, with the quantity and quality of data now available, how frequent and widespread incidents of warfare were in the thirteenth century in the central Mesa Verde region. The rate of occurrence is difficult to determine because a very specific type of data is required in order to make an estimate such as this, the best of which is evidence of lethal trauma on the remains of multiple individuals that can be securely dated to the thirteenth century. There may be several reasons why these data are not more readily available in the archaeological record for the central Mesa Verde region (LeBlanc 2001:40). First, there has not been a great deal of recent research on late Pueblo III habitations in the region, and human remains are now commonly avoided during excavation for a variety of reasons. Also, some evidence of warfare may have gone unrecognized in the remains that have been found. Trauma, even lethal trauma, is likely to be interpreted as resulting from accident unless there is additional, unmistakable evidence of warfare directly associated with the remains. Evidence from early excavations in the region is also problematic. Many remains were not "saved" or have subsequently been lost (Porter 1984:2; Turner and Turner 1999; Wilson 1990:5). The results of scores of excavations were never published; some possible incidents of late Pueblo III warfare were briefly reported secondhand (Morris 1939:42). Also, many early excavators appear to have focused on finding and preserving complete, museum-worthy"specimens;' and it is probable that human remains damaged or scattered by warfare were less often collected, analyzed, and preserved than were complete, formally buried human remains.

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

Dating of early collections is also frequently a problem. For example, at Snider's Well, located somewhere near Yucca House (Figure 1.2), evidence of lethal trauma was noted on the remains of many individuals at the time of excavation in the late 1800s (McNitt 1966:74-75); however, evidence to date the event, and even the occupation of the site, is lacking. Even with the above problems, however, it seems unlikely that direct evidence of warfare in the region would have gone unrecognized if conflict had resulted in decades of rampant and wholesale destruction of people and property just prior to regional depopulation. So although the occurrence rate of lethal conflicts is difficult to estimate, the number probably lies somewhere between few and many. But it is worth emphasizing that the quantity of indirect evidence of conflict and warfare clearly indicates that the lives of ancient Puebloans regionwide were affected far beyond the loss-of-life incidents such as the events at Castle Rock and Sand Canyon pueblos.

WHO WAS THE ENEMY? There are few data on which to base a firm conclusion of the identity of the enemy. Thus far, inferences have rested predominantly on negative evidence; that is, there is very little evidence to suggest that any culture group other than Puebloans were present in the required numbers within striking distance of the central Mesa Verde region in the thirteenth century (Kuckelman et al. 2002; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:64; Lipe 1995:161-162; Lipe and Varien 1999b: 341). A few bits of evidence suggesting non-Puebloan presence in the region during this time were noted at Castle Rock (Kuckelman 2000b:par. 8). There are also vague references to aggression from outsiders sprinkled through the literature; for example, a reference to a possible Ute role in ancestral Pueblo migrations was reported by a member of John Wesley Powell's Colorado River expedition of 1871-1872 (Darrah 1948-1949:211), who wrote about "the Moquis [sic] tribes which evidently inhabited this section of the country at some time

and were driven out many years ago.... The Utes claim that their forefathers conquered and drove them away." And Schaafsma (2000:20-21) has observed that thirteenth-century rock art with militaristic themes is most abundant along the Anasazi/Fremont frontier in southeastern Utah, possibly suggesting conflict between these two ethnic groups. On the other hand, Utes encountered in Mancos Canyon by William Henry Jackson of the Hayden survey in 1874 stated (Waitley 1999:154) that their tribe "had no knowledge of who had built the exotic stone dwellings. They knew only that the Navajo called them ... Anasazi." For the most part Linton's (1944) cogent and oft-cited argument against non-Puebloan attackers still holds sway (Wilcox and Haas 1994:214-216) even after 60 years of additional archaeological research (LeBlanc 1998:120, 1999: 52-54; Lipe 1995:161-162; Lipe and Varien 1999b:341). A Puebloan identity for both sides engaging in the violence during this time is also implicit in many

245

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

discussions of conflict that address intercommunity competition over resources and arable land (e.g., Varien et al. 1996:107). A potentially fruitful avenue for future research into warfare in the northern Southwest could focus on evidence such as the spatial distribution of towers that could indicate whether the warring factions were primarily intra- or interregional, although these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive (see Rice 2001:297-298). Keeley (1996: 122, 126) observes that enemies and trade partners are frequently the same people, as exchange can easily incite warfare.

STRATEGIES AND TACTICS Evidence of warfare strategies and tactics in the central Mesa Verde region includes the aggregating of population into villages, building villages in defensible locations and configurations, constructing defensive architecture and access-restrictive features, and possibly creating buffer zones between competing groups. All of the above strategies would have been defensive in nature. However, it is possible that aggregation was also an offensive strategy that ensured families that an adequate number of allies could be amassed should offensive action be necessary or desirable. An oral history account of a battle that purportedly occurred at Castle Rock Pueblo (Kuckelman 2000d; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:54-56) suggests that siege was used as a warfare strategy during this time. It is also possible that burning of structures with victims trapped inside was a warfare strategy (see ((Burned Structures:' above). The high fatality rate resulting from the attack on Castle Rock Pueblo indicates that the strategic goal of that attack was to wipe out the village; thus, men, women, and children were all victims of warfare events (Kuckelman et al. 2002). Some offensive fighting tactics are reflected in the fatal wounds that were inflicted. The preponderance of evidence from the region indicates that shock weapons such as axes or clubs were used in hand-to-hand combat to inflict lethal blows to the skull or at least were more successful in causing death than the bow and arrow (see «Weapons;' above). How many warriors fighting handto-hand would have been required to defeat a village the size of Castle Rock? Modern military strategists maintain that a 3-to-l superiority in numbers is required to successfully assault a fixed defense (e.g., Wilcox et al. 2001b:145). Castle Rock, a fortified village of 75 to 150 residents (Kuckelman 2000e:par. 12) probably would have averaged at least one and probably not more than three adult males per kiva or residential group. At the time of the attack 14 kivas were occupied (Kuckelman 2000e), suggesting a total of between 14 and 42 adult males in the village. If the 3-tO-1 superiority in numbers theory is accurate, defeating Castle Rock Pueblo would thus have required an attacking force of between 42 and 126 warriors, or the adult males from approximately 42 kivas. This assumes, of course, that all or most of the Castle Rock adult males were

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

within the village when the attack occurred, which might not have been the case. What villages or communities could have amassed enough warriors to destroy Castle Rock Pueblo? The attack occurred an unknown number of years after A.D. 1274, probably in the 1280s. Within the region a sizable population apparently still inhabited Yellow Jacket Pueblo (site SMTS) and Sand Canyon Pueblo, even at that late date (Kuckelman and Ortman 2002); both are located northeast of Castle Rock (Figure 1.2). A large enough group probably also could have been rallied on Mesa Verde to the southeast or possibly in the Hovenweep communities to the northwest. The nearest interregional groups with adequate population would have been in the Kayenta region to the west and southwest and in the Totah region to the south. Also, any of these groups could have allied with each other to attack Castle Rock.

EFFECTS OF WARFARE How did warfare or the threat of warfare affect thirteenth-century Puebloans in the central Mesa Verde region? Warfare and its pressures would have created a complex range of particular responses within the locality and the region and would have affected settlement, social, political, economic, and ritual systems; it also would have had significant psychological impacts on the combatants, victims, and potential victims. Effects of warfare discussed above include the widespread resettlement of people into larger villages located in more defensible locations that usually included ensuring access to, and controlling others' access to, domestic water sources and the construction of defensive buildings and walls. Aggregation was probably important to survival, as the number ofwarriors on each side is critical to the outcome of a warfare event. However, aggregation would have also created numerous stresses and difficulties that would have necessitated substantial changes and reorganization of most cultural systems. Aggregation would have resulted in crowding, poor sanitation, increased distance to fields (Haas and Creamer 1996:210; Wilcox and Haas 1994:237), and an increase in contagious diseases. Nearby resources are likely to have been overexploited, compelling residents to venture increasing distances to procure such essentials as edible plants, game, firewood, pottery clay, lithic materials, construction materials, and for some groups even water. The difficulties ofprocuring water and edible resources would have been compounded during climatic deterioration late in the century. In addition, any groups engaging in subsistence activities away from the village would have required protection from attack. An account of nineteenth-century warfare in the Southwest describes women tending fields and gathering wood while under the protection of armed warriors (Rice 2001:29S-296). Thus, the frequency of these types ofventures and even the distance that groups were willing to go for these activities

247

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

could have been curtailed. For smaller villages such as Castle Rock, this situation would have required monitoring to maintain a delicate balance between the number of warriors needed to protect a venturing party and the number needed to stay behind and protect those who remained in the village. Regardless of the initial impetus for aggregation, "warfare would have curtailed household and community level mobility as solutions to both social and adaptive problems" (Lipe and Varien 1999b:340). Kohler and Van West (1996) conclude that the period A.D. 1272 to 1288 was a very poor time for resource pooling or food sharing in the northern San Juan and would have been a time when population dispersion would have been the best strategy for household survival. That these folks did not or could not disperse during this time could have increased social and economic stresses. When possible, increased quantities of food would have been stored against the advent of siege, for war-party provisioning, or for times when venturing from the village was too dangerous. Effort could also have been expended to conceal food stores against the advent of raiding. The quantity of consumable resources on hand at anyone time could have been affected by the level of raiding success of one's enemies versus the raiding success of one's own warriors. Weapons would have increased in importance, and additional time and effort would have been expended to ensure that war clubs or axes and adequate stockpiles of arrows were on hand. Even though the evidence from the Southwest suggests that no objects were used exclusively as weapons (Wilcox and Haas 1994:223), additional quantities of any objects used as weapons would have been required to fulfill both subsistence and warfare needs. Warfare could also have impeded trade relations for needed items such as lithic materials. There is little evidence within the region of interregional exchange during the thirteenth century (Lekson 1999b:19; Lipe 1995:158; Varien et al. 1996:99), and at least one study suggests that exchange between neighboring communities within the region also decreased (Neily 1983). One of the most important effects of warfare would have been a reduced population within the region and the number of adult males in particular. According to Keeley (1996:84) men were seldom taken prisoner in tribal warfare, probably because warriors were "unlikely to accept captivity without attempting violent escapes or revenge; thus holding them captive required levels ofvigilance and upkeep that most tribal societies were unable or unprepared to provide." A decline in the number of adult males would have had serious socioeconomic effects on families, villages, and communities by reducing the size of the labor force for tasks that were traditionally performed by males. Affected areas could have included the following: defensive and offensive capabilities in warfare events; subsistence activities such as hunting, land clearing, planting, and harvesting of crops; building construction; instruction and training of boys in all of the above activities, including warfare; and availability of marriage partners. There might have been an increased tendency to marry within

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

one's own village or community or in an allied community and a decreased tendency to marry into an enemy community. Special warrior societies, such as the Bow priesthood, might have been created or increased in importance to oversee the planning and implementing of warfare activities. Warfare-associated fatalities in the Sand Canyon locality included many women and children. Thus, incidents such as the massacre at Castle Rock could have wiped out entire clans and other groups that were the repositories of unique or specialized knowledge within the village or community. The deaths of women would have reduced the ability of the society to reproduce and to fulfill the tasks traditionally carried out by women, such as child rearing, food gathering and preparation, fashioning of clothing, pottery making, and instructing of young girls. Fish (2000:187) addresses how warfare affects the gender structure of food production. The status of females can change during warfare (NeitzeI2000:Table 4.1); that is, female status might be higher when males are away in warfare for considerable periods of time, whereas status may be lower when more warfare is nearby. Warfare would lead to political changes that would have included intravillage, intervillage, intracommunity, and intercommunity dialogue regarding offensive and defensive strategies, attack and counterattack plans, posting of sentries, possibly signaling or other advance-warning strategies, and truces. Once aggression began, all of the occupants of the region would have been obliged to participate, either offensively, defensively, or both to prevent being stolen from or killed. Continued escalation of conflict would have been a possibility throughout the last half of the thirteenth century. Organizational changes that enabled one group to increase its fighting force would call for increasing organizational strength in the region overall (LeBlanc and Rice 2001:8). It is likely that groups formed offensive and defensive alliances (Lipe 1995:154), and such alliances could have spelled the difference between disaster and survival. The residents of the villages who were successful at warfare probably enjoyed more political and social power and prestige and were able to protect their own lives and those of their family and friends and to preserve property and possessions more effectively. By the same token, if waging warfare successfully was an important part of survival, it is probable that men lost status if they were unable to participate in warfare because of poor health, advanced age, or physical or mental inability. Other effects ofwarfare might have included the implementation of rituals associated with war, such as rituals to prepare warriors for battle. Other rituals might have been observed while men were off engaged in battles or raids; still others might have been performed after the men returned to the village (HaysGilpin 2000:126). Warfare would have increased the need for medicines, medical knowledge, curing ceremonies, and for ministering to the wounded. Psychological effects of warfare should also be recognized and would include stress over the threat of falling into the hands of the enemy or of being injured or killed or having any of those catastrophes happen to a friend or loved one.

249

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

250

Women and children probably also lived with the possibility of being taken captive, never to return home, and perhaps to live out their lives subject to mistreatment at the hands of their captors (see Kuckelman 2001; Martin 1997). Escalating hostilities were probably a factor in the depopulation of the central Mesa Verde region in the late 1200S, and as such, depopulation should be viewed as one effect ofwarfare in the region. As decisions were reached to leave the area, the possibility of attack could well have affected the size of migrating groups. Thus, these groups were probably larger than residential groups, which would have been easy prey even for a small group of warriors. On the other hand, migrating groups would probably have been smaller than whole communities (but see Wilcox 1996:249), as hundreds of people crossing a landscape together would seemingly face serious logistical problems, particularly in regard to provisioning. Migrating groups thus could have been suprahousehold groups of some type. Migrating in groups larger than residential groups would have also acted to preserve some social, political, economic, and ritual organization above the household level during resettlement in new locations.

CAUSES OF WARFARE What were the proximate and ultimate causes of warfare in the central Mesa Verde region during the thirteenth century? The proximate causes of individual warfare events were probably many and varied, and it is difficult to find archaeological evidence of these types of causes, but cross-cultural studies could provide some insight. According to Keeley (1996:177), "it seems universal that it is usually an act of violence by one side that precipitates war and behind such acts are usually disputes of an economic nature;' and the proximate causes of most wars «are acts of violence that provoke further violence in immediate defense or subsequent retaliation" (Keeley 1996:116). It is also very rare for "an intergroup killing not to lead to warfare or feuding" (Keeley 1996:117). Other proximate causes of warfare events could have been starvation resulting from competition over resources that gave rise to the raiding of enemies' food stores or even the possibility of engaging in anthropophagy (Kuckelman et al. 2002).

There was probably a great deal of overlap between the ultimate causes of warfare and the causes of regional depopulation. Possible causes of this depopulation have been debated for decades, and this subject is beyond the scope of this chapter but include overpopulation (see Kohler 1989:6), resource depletion (Kohler and Matthews 1988; Stiger 1979), climatic deterioration (see Dean and Van West, this volume), religious or political upheaval, and various "pull" factors that could have enhanced the attractiveness of other regions to the south and southeast (Cameron 1995; Lipe 1995; Varien et al. 1996). Wilcox and Haas (1994:237) see warfare as an "effect of a combination of environmental, demographic and political variables" rather than as a monocausal agent of depopulation and migration. Haas and Creamer (1996:205) state that "warfare

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

was endemic throughout the northern Southwest in the thirteenth century" and that "any explanations of settlement, political relations, and abandonment must incorporate warfare as a central causal variable"; they also see environmental stress as playing a "dominant causal role» in influencing behavior (Haas and Creamer 1996:211). Keeley (1996:139,140) finds that, cross-culturally, droughts are common factors in "disaster-driven warfare" and that much intensive prestate warfare occurred during hard times resulting from ecological and climatic changes. Increased population density resulting from favorable climatic conditions in the Southwest in the late A.D. 1100S could have proved detrimental when the climate deteriorated in the 1200S, leading to competition for dwindling resources. Varien (1999:211) found an increasing overlap of community catchments in the central Mesa Verde region after A.D. 1150, resulting in greater competition for resources. Any or all of the above factors could have contributed to increasing warfare and the depopulation of the region in the late 1200S. However, the most persuasive argument for climatic deterioration being an important factor in the rise of warfare in the central Mesa Verde region is the coincident rise of warfare in other areas of the Southwest (Rice and LeBlanc 2001) and other regions of the continent as well (Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:64) among groups that would have had little or no contact with, or even knowledge of, each other.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PUEBLO IV PERIOD (A.D. 1300 TO EUROPEAN CONTACT) What happened after the migration of these people from the locality and from the central Mesa Verde region? Although broad-scale studies of population movements during this time have been carried out (e.g., Bernardini 1998; Duff1998), it has been difficult to detect definitive evidence of the resettling of Mesa Verde groups in other areas of the Southwest. There is oral historical evidence that those who survived the battle ascribed to Castle Rock migrated to the Hopi Mesas (Kuckelman 2000d:par. 2; Lightfoot and Kuckelman 2001:56). There is evidence of an extensive population from the northern San Juan region inhabiting defensive locations on Chacra Mesa east of Chaco Canyon between A.D. 1275 and 1300 and of a small occupation in Chaco Canyon itself possibly as late as 1350 (Vivian and Mathews 1965:113). In general, population aggregation among Puebloans increased during the Pueblo IV period (Bernardini 1998:94; Kohler 1989:4; LeBlanc 1998, 1999; Lekson 1999b:16; Lipe 1989:63), and the increase in warfare evidenced in the central Mesa Verde region in the thirteenth century did not end with migration from the region. Large Pueblo IV villages, built in a variety of indisputably defensive locations and arrangements, are evidence that warfare continued to affect the lives and decisions of Puebloans for centuries afterward (Bernardini 1998; LeBlanc 1998, 1999). Thus, although the quest for a more favorable environment was probably a factor in

25 1

KRISTIN A. KUCKELMAN

decisions to migrate, it is also possible that a desire to join or form even larger villages was also a factor in the decisions of ancient Puebloans to migrate from this region into regions to the south and southeast. CONCLUSIONS Numerous indicators of warfare in the thirteenth century have been recorded in the Sand Canyon locality and the central Mesa Verde region; additional synthetic studies could be done on the manifestations of each of these indicators within the region. Keeley (2001:335) states that the only universal «law" of warfare is that «larger numbers, fortifications, and better logistics will win, in the long run and in most cases, over unfortified smaller numbers with poorer logistics." It appears that the thirteenth-century residents of the central Mesa Verde region were aware of this and sought to improve their chances of survival by acting on it. Economic competition resulting from climatic deterioration could have initially stimulated aggressive actions that began a cycle of warfare based on revenge and retaliation. Warfare has physical, economic, and material costs (Keeley 1996:84), costs that these people could ill afford, especially if the climate was deteriorating. So the overall effect of warfare in the thirteenthcentury central Mesa Verde region was that it made a bad situation worse and very likely contributed to decisions to migrate from the area. And as population in the region dwindled, small groups remaining behind would have been vulnerable to attack. Warfare would thus have been a "push" factor in regional depopulation, and there were also probably some «pull" factors (Cameron 1995; Lipe and Varien 1999b:341), but it seems unlikely that these types of factors alone would have resulted in complete depopulation of the region. The single most significant circumstance that would have the greatest likelihood of causing the complete depopulation of the region is deterioration ofthe climate such that it would no longer support the agricultural subsistence base on which the population had become dependent. The ubiquity and profound effects of warfare obligate us to integrate the study of warfare into our analyses of human societies. Keeley (1996) and Wallace and Doelle (2001:286) present convincing arguments that warfare in nonstate societies is often more deadly and of greater social consequence than that occurring between recent and modern state-level societies. Warfare varies enormously both temporally and geographically, so specific evidence of warfare must be noted and interpreted carefully. It is imperative that we don't, as Keeley (1996, 2001) charges, "pacify the past," that we not only look for and recognize evidence of warfare in the archaeological record but also strive to understand how the particular form, level, and intensity of warfare encountered affected the society in question. In 1994 Wilcox and Haas (1994:211-212) wrote, "The nature, intensity, duration, extent, causes, and effects of prehistoric com-

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY WARFARE IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION

petition and conflict in the region ... remain unclear." Although this is essentially still true, our research in the Sand Canyon locality contributed significant new data to this very important and understudied area of research, and as a result we are moving toward a better understanding of the warfare-related dynamics of culture change among the ancient Puebloans.

253

Part 5 COMMUNITY The Past in the Present

12 Native American Perspectives on Sand Canyon Pueblo and Other Ancestral Sites IAN THOMPSON

he people who built and occupied Sand Canyon Pueblo and similar pueblos throughout the San Juan River Basin were among the ancestors of the modern Puebloan peoples of New Mexico and Arizona. Puebloan people have their own interpretations of these ancestral sites. In 1994 the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center invited Pueblo Indians from the Pueblos of Taos, San Juan, Santa Clara, Zia, Acoma, Zuni, and one of the Hopi villages to contribute their views on ancestral places such as Sand Canyon Pueblo. All of the modern pueblos and villages represented are within five days' walking distance of Sand Canyon Pueblo, so when the people left here they did not travel far. Sleeping Ute Mountain, visible a few miles to the south, is on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. A member of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe was invited to contribute perspectives of the Ute people. Ten Pueblo women and men, visiting one or two at a time, spent a total of 12 days at Sand Canyon Pueblo and similar ancestral pueblos in southwestern Colorado. All agreed that their oral traditions, which vary from community to community, do not make specific reference to particular sites in the San Juan River Basin. All agreed, however, that the oral traditions in every pueblo do state that groups of their people came from the north, from Mesa Verde and vicinity, to the places where they live today. Each Pueblo community has its own account of the origin of its people. Each of these accounts has its unique elements, but all agree that people ascended through a series of underworlds before emerging into this world. From that Place of Emergence groups separated and began the migrations that led them to the places they live today. Although each Pueblo community has its own origin stories and histories, I have not used the names of particular groups in this recounting. I wanted to witness the universal, deeply felt Pueblo Indian response to these sites even though the histories, languages, and people

T

257

IAN THOMPSON

of the Pueblos are diverse. At the request of those who participated in this project they are not specifically named in this account of their perspectives. In our migration accounts, our people carne from a northerly direction. They stopped along the way. The people originated in the lowest of four worldsthat is where the time of our pueblo began. The lowest world is yellow, the next is green, then red, and finally white. Our world is white. When they entered the white world, they migrated in a southerly direction. Today an unborn person follows this path from conception until birth, until emerging into this world at our pueblo. Then that person moves south until death. On dying, the individual stops traveling south, turns, and travels back north. If an individual was a caring and giving person in this world, then the assignment he or she gets in the next world could be rain clouds, giver of life. Our people emerged from the lake, and it is a place of great symbolic importance. According to the Emergence Legend, we all came from the north in two groups. The hunters, the winter people, traveled in the highlands. The gatherers, the summer people, traveled in the lowlands. The people traveled that way until we all came together where we are now. The people originated in the Grand Canyon, and from there we began our quest for the Middle Place where we are today. From the original group, two smaller groups separated. The ancient ones were given a choice of two bird eggs-raven/crow and macaw/parrot-by the two divine warrior guides who had led them on their quest. One group chose the egg of the raven or crow; they journeyed to the north. We have a word for this area, it refers to an ancestral place in the northeast. We return to some of these places-in that way the connection is maintained. But don't emphasize one Pueblo tribe over another in talking about links to these places. Many different Pueblo people are linked to these places.

Each of the Puebloans who visited Sand Canyon Pueblo described her or his responses to this site. Their observations were oftentimes full of feeling and appreciation for this ancient pueblo. First-time non-Indian visitors recognize that the place is special, but the Pueblo visitors had an exceptional understanding of the place. Everyone of the Pueblo visitors emphasized his/her very real connection to the people who lived at this site: My feeling about this place is one of respect and closeness. I can hear them, the people who lived here, speak through the winds and the clouds. So much has taken place here... survival, spiritual gatherings.... I'm always amazed at how aesthetically pleasing these places are. They reflect thoughtfulness and purpose of placement-they are almost always oriented to the mountains and water. Modern Pueblo people always focus on mountains and water-our ancestors did too. Walking around Sand Canyon Pueblo, I felt

NATIVE AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

it would have been possible for me to live here. It is a place like my home. There were people here who called this place home. Kivas? What are called kivas here are round rooms used for many purposes, ineluding domestic purposes. There is a misconception that a kiva is a place only for religious purposes. This is not always the case. We are a very organized and civilized people-it took that to build this pueblo. There was a plan, a consensus, that Sand Canyon Pueblo should be built this way. Visitors here should be aware of the relationship of this community to nature. We had to live with this land. Sand Canyon Pueblo fits right into this environment. When you look out from this place you see the mountains, the sky, the snow. The designs of petroglyphs, pottery, and murals are symbolic of these things, of everything in the universe. These show how the people thought and how they expressed themselves in art. Sand Canyon Pueblo was a closeknit community. To build this place took collective decision making and strong leadership. Look at how the buildings are organized. There was a concern for the whole community, not just for the individual. You can see that in the original pueblo of my family and in the settlements in the valley after people moved down from the mesa. If visitors here want to see how these people live a thousand years later, they should come to pueblos such as Acoma or Zuni or Taos. The Emergence Legend influences the architectural organization of pueblos. Each community has a physical center, but there is a symbolic center, too, in each individual's mind. It is the word lake, the lake. For example, the physical centers of Sand Canyon Pueblo, according to our belief, would have been in the following places: In each kiva's "nansipu;' in the centers of the plazas, and definitely at the spring. Our people emerged from the lake, and it is a place of great symbolic importance. Sand Canyon Pueblo is one of the most organized places I've seen. I can't believe it didn't have a center that organized its architecture ... the lake. Sand Canyon Pueblo shows a centralized organization of the people, and it shows they had a leader. This place is well organized, indicating their belief system was well organized. Aesthetics are very important in Sand Canyon Pueblo. In form and shape this place is absolutely beautiful. ... All that goes back to philosophy. These people had a well-organized philosophy. Sand Canyon Pueblo takes you back. I felt like I lived here. It touches my heart. I asked for the blessing of the good people who lived here. That's how much I appreciate this place.

Sand Canyon is noted for its numerous circular structures, or what some archaeologists call "kivas." At modern pueblos, kivas are not as close to living areas as they are here. Thus, kivas here may have been used on a daily basis as living quarters. Kivas at home are not used in this way-they are sacred and not for living in. What you refer

259

IAN THOMPSON

260

to as kivas may have been of more than one type, some less sacred and others used only by certain clans, families, or groups. Today our kivas are rectangular, but they still include hearths, deflectors, sipapus, and rooftop entrances like the round kivas here at Sand Canyon Pueblo. Many structures in pueblos are intended for ceremonial use. The contents of the ceremonial and ritual life hold great complexity in the pueblo setting. They display a sophisticated knowledge of architectural technology. Lunar and social cycles have a great influence on our religious belief, and they influenced the architectural alignments and layouts found in these ancient places.

Archaeologists frequently refer to the Puebloan «abandonment" of places like Sand Canyon Pueblo and the entire San Juan River Basin, in the late thirteenth century A.D. Puebloans view those events differently. For Pueblo people these places are not abandoned: Don't use the word abandonment. It implies disgust, rejection, finality.... This place was never abandoned. I'm here and other Pueblo people have been here before. They didn't abandon this place. It is still occupied. We can still pray to the spirits living in these places from as far away as our pueblo. The spirits are everywhere. Not just the spirits of our ancestors, but tree spirits and rock spirits. If you believe that everything has spirit, you will think twice before harming anything. Abandonment? In my view this area is still occupied in the spiritual sense. Certain sites are still mentioned in our traditional prayers. We have not abandoned these sites in the religious sense. In our spirituality, sites such as Sand Canyon Pueblo still play an important role in the well-being ofour present community. Why did they leave? Catastrophe, drought, conflict? .. Perhaps. On the other hand, people could be attracted to another place by better hunting or farming conditions. Religious considerations could have affected the decision not to reoccupy this area. In the case of the ancient group that went north in search of the Middle Place, it is stated that this group eventually regrouped with the original group at our pueblo.

When asked why Puebloan people did not return to the San Juan River Basin and reoccupy the region, there were a variety of related responses: Why did we not return here to live? In the case of my pueblo, our ancestors were looking for the Middle Place. They stopped along the way, and stayed here or there for a while, to see if they had come to the right place. When they got to where our pueblo is now, the heart of the water strider was over the Middle Place. The quest ended there. That is why we did not return here.

NATIVE AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

When they migrated they did not return, because the direction of life is south. On death, you go north. If you settle north of the pueblo while alive, you risk an early death. The past is north, the future is south. That is why people did not return here to live. This is north, this is the past. But it is also the present of our spiritual world.

How should non-Indians conduct themselves when visiting ancestral Puebloan homes such as Sand Canyon Pueblo? We have to respect this place. Unripe Earth Old Woman still lives here. Her life breath remains in this place. She remains in the below place with the supernaturals. The spirits are still here watching us. Visit this place with respect. Treat this place like your home. People should leave this place saying "thank you:' That's how we are taught. Respect-that word says a lot. You can't wish yourself to be something you are not. Non-Indians should not come here to plant crystals and make offerings. Visiting here may help increase respect and understanding of other cultures. Act respectfully when you visit these places. They were home to many people. Do not take anything away or leave anything here. When you are at these places, you should leave a prayer to the ancient ones and spirits. Springs are very, very sacred. Don't disturb them. The link between the ancient people who lived here and the modern Pueblo people should be emphasized. Emphasize that Native peoples are multicultural with a rich past. Places like Sand Canyon Pueblo should be viewed as a past aspect of Puebloan development. These sites are still maintained in our prayers as a part of our living religious practices. We, the Pueblo people of today, are the caretakers of these places now. Even though people moved on, these places are sacred because people lived here and performed songs, prayers, and ceremonies here. We respect this and are awed by this. Our people still come back to these places.

THE UTE HISTORY It is unknown when the Ute people first arrived in this area, but they may have been here when the Puebloan people were here. The Hopi Greasewood Clan traces its migrations from this area, and those accounts describe interactions with the Utes here. Sleeping Ute Mountain, visible just to the south of Sand Canyon Pueblo, is on the modern Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation. The Utes have their own Ute name for the mountain. A member of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe explains:

261

262

IAN THOMPSON

When the Spanish arrived in the seventeenth century, there were seven bands of Utes living in a region larger than the state of Colorado, including the area surrounding Sand Canyon Pueblo. The Utes were the first residents of Colorado. The federal government put the Utes on reservations and then greatly reduced the size of those reservations. The Utes do not consider the ancient Puebloan people to be ancestors. The Utes and Puebloans are two different peoples. The Ute people moved and camped frequently-they were a mobile people. So, unlike the Puebloan people with their stone structures, the Utes left little archaeological trace.

It is illegal to trespass on Ute Mountain Ute lands, but it is possible to visit the 12s,ooo-acre Ute Mountain Tribal Park (on the reservation) with Ute guides. The Tribal Park contains many Ute and Puebloan ancestral sites. Treat these sites with respect. There is a lot to be learned from them. Native peoples possess a unique, rich background that should be shared with the world. But, at times, our cultures do get misinterpreted which causes more harm than good. Within the Native cultures, many areas create confusion among visitors. It is through dialogue and communication with Native people that we can gain a better understanding of how life may have been in this ancient setting.

13 Concepts of Community in Archaeological Research MICHELLE HEGMON

C

ommunity has a multiplicity of meanings and connotations. It is a social relationship, a sense of interdependence and belonging. We can talk about a feeling of community, and it is a feeling that is almost always given positive connotations (Bauman 2001; Williams 1976). This description of community is easy for us (as human beings) to understand, but it is difficult for us (as researchers) to apply. In fact, "community" has been called "one of the most vague and elusive concepts in social science, [one that l continues to defy precise definition" (Shore 1993:99). Community is also an enormously productive concept in archaeological research, as is evidenced by the chapters in this volume and many other sources (e.g., Adler 1990; Canuto and Yaeger 2000; Kantner and Mahoney 2000; Kolb and Snead 1997; Rogers and Smith 1995; Varien 1999; Wills and Leonard, eds. 1994). Although many definitions have been set forth (I discuss these in more detail in the following section), an analytical approach is usually implicit, if not explicit, in that communities are defined in terms of what they or their members do and how they can be identified. In one productive version a community was defined as "a group of individuals who live in proximity to one another within a geographically limited area, who have face-to-face interaction on a regular basis, and who share access to resources in their local sustaining areas" (Varien 1999:4). Thus communities have geographic, demographic, and social dimensions (Varien 1999:19), and they can be identified archaeologically as groups of residences and often associated with public architecture. One of my goals in this essay is to explore the social dimensions of community, particularly the links between the operationalized archaeological/analytical definition and the perception of community as feeling (see Isbell 2000 for a similar approach). Many classic community studies (e.g., Lynd and Lynd 1930) very sensibly selected easily defined communities-such as small midwestern towns-that were often also political units, but not all communities

MICHELLE HEGMON

necessarily fit this model. Archaeologically identified communities involve face-to-face social interaction and shared resource use, and what else? Are communities bounded units, and in what ways? Are communities actually units of activity or decision making, or might they be primarily symbolic (sensu Cohen 1985)? Is community an important aspect of identity? I hope it is obvious that the answers to these questions vary across time and space and depend on the community in question. Although it will not always be possible to answer all of these questions archaeologically, they still need to be asked, to remind us that the nature of community is not a constant and to focus our attention on variation, as Adler (this volume) emphasizes. An understanding of some of this variation is one of the many contributions of this volume. Here I attempt to synthesize some of these insights into community variation in order to suggest some answers to the above questions and to direct attention to others. Grappling with these questions regarding community involves insights derived from social theory, and my second goal here is to bring this social theory to the fore (a similar approach was taken by Varien [2000] in his discussion of Chacoan communities). To this end I consider several interrelated aspects of social analysis both in general terms and in relation to concepts discussed in the chapters and related work by these authors (especially Adler 1990, 1996; Adler, ed. 1996; Adler and Varien 1994; Lightfoot 1994; Lipe 1992b, 1995; Varien 1999; Varien et al. 1996). In part, this involves highlighting aspects of this research that have explicitly drawn from social theory and have advanced its archaeological potential, specifically, the changing land-tenure system (Adler 1990, 1996; Adler and Varien 1994) and Varien's (1999,2000, this volume) conceptualization of these changes in terms of structuration (sensu Giddens 1984). In other cases I suggest that some of the findings presented here-although they do not explicitly use the vocabulary of contemporary social theory-serve as excellent examples of the concepts. For example, the processes of migration and depopulation can be conceptualized, in terms of structuration theory, as a transformation of the structure. Finally, I attempt to explore new ways in which insights from social theory may sharpen and clarify our understanding of prehistoric social life in the northern San Juan region, for example regarding social boundaries and the concept of place. I focus on the latter (mostly post-1100) portion of northern San Juan region occupation and draw on a threefold temporal classification. The first and third divisions are relatively straightforward. The first is the era (that ended in the mid-twelfth century) during which the Chacoan regional system (manifested in part by Chacoan outliers often surrounded by unit pueblos) extended across much of the northern Southwest, including the northern San Juan region. I base my chronological interpretation on the dates (A.D. 1100-1150) given for Casa Negra (the great house near Sand Canyon Pueblo) in Adler (ed. 1996:263).1 The third division is the era of the aggregated large sites such as Sand Canyon Pueblo (A.D. 1240-129°), as well as many of the large Mesa Verde

COMMUNITY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

cliff dwellings. The second division is that less-well-understood period in between A.D. 1150 and 1240 (roughly equivalent to Varien's [1999, this volume] Period Three [A.D. 1151-1225] ). Many large sites were built and/or occupied at this time (including Shields Pueblo, the Bass site complex at Woods Canyon, and Yellow Jacket Pueblo), but it is not clear what, if any, large site or communal architecture that might have been part of the Sand Canyon community was in use at this time. 2 Many of the small Sand Canyon locality sites tested by Crow Canyon (Varien, ed. 1999; Varien et al. 1992) date to this period. In general the settlement pattern becomes increasingly clustered over this 100-year span, but it is also possible that there was a population decline in the late twelfth century (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Varien et al. 1996), and this period is less well understood than the preceding or following times (Wilshusen and Varien, this volume).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS OF COMMUNITY The word community is commonly used in archaeological literature, often simply as a synonym for village or site cluster, and there is a long history of archaeological research on various aspects of social organization within and among such communities (e.g., Flannery 1976; Longacre 1970). However, only recently have many archaeologists explicitly addressed the concept of community, what is really applied by the appellation, and how the concept should properly be applied in research on the past. Here I briefly review some of this recent literature, focusing on general studies and on work in parts of the Southwest that are beyond the scope of this volume (i.e., other than the post1100 northern San Juan region). Thus my review is intended to complement that by Adler (this volume), who focuses the review portions of his chapter primarily on ethnographic literature and on the northern Southwest. More general reviews are presented by Kolb and Snead (1997) and in the chapters in Canuto and Yaeger (2000). Archaeological discussions of community can be divided or categorized according to at least four issues: spatial scale; the degree of emphasis on space and place; emphasis on properties and functions vs. emphasis on how communities are constituted; and emphasis on analytical vs. conceptual understandings. There is considerable overlap among these issues, but separate discussion is useful to elucidate some of the concepts. First, as Wills and Leonard (1994) noted, in the Southwest the term community is applied to different spatial scales; including both individual sites (residential communities) and larger settlement systems (political communities) (and in other areas of the world, a single site may comprise multiple communities [Nelson 1994]). Furthermore, in the Hohokam area at least two scales of settlement systems are commonly labeled communities. Large sites (that is, primary villages or sites with ball courts or platform mounds) and surrounding smaller sites are often interpreted as multisite communities; one of the best

266

MICHELLE HEGMON

described examples is the Marana community, north of Tucson (Fish et al. 1992; see also Gregory and Nials 1985; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983). At a larger

level the networks of sites (often including many sites with ceremonial architecture) are interpreted as ((local systems" (Elson et al. 1995) or as irrigation communities (Doyel 1974; see summary in Gregory 1991:170-174). In some cases, such as Marana, the platform mound community and a small irrigation system are coextensive, but in other cases, such as Canal System 2 (Howard 1990; see summary in Abbott 2000:25-34), an irrigation community comprises numerous multisite communities centered around platform mounds. Second, although most if not all researchers recognize some spatial component to communities, some conceptions emphasize what Adler (this volume) calls spatialization and shared residence, whereas others emphasize interaction. To some extent this contrast parallels the above distinction between residential and political communities, although it is worth discussing separately to elucidate the importance of space and place in some accounts. Mahoney (2000) discussed both residence and interaction. She identified Chacoan outliers and surrounding small sites as residential communities. However, based on demographic estimates (see also Mahoney et al. 2000), she argued that these residential communities were too small to be reproductively viable (that is, they could not have sustained a mating network); thus she suggests they were part of larger sustainable communities} The spatial scale of these sustainable communities was quite large (they averaged ca. 40 sq km), and it is possible that membership was overlapping; that is, the mating networks were not necessarily bounded, and residential communities may have been part of more than one sustainable community. Researchers who emphasize various kinds of interaction as the basis of communities have developed concepts applicable to various spatial scales. Wills and Leonard (1994:xv) conceptualized communities as involving "fluid patterns of obligation and reciprocity:' an approach that can be applied to both residential and political communities. Similarly, Adler)s (1990, 1996, this volume) understanding of communities as social organizational entities that ((define access to necessary resources, provide a level of social identity for local inhabitants, and constitute the highest level of decision making above the kinship level in nonstratified societies'" is applicable at various levels. Finally, several researchers focused on the nature of interaction within and across spatially defined communities. Abbott's (2000) work on Hohokam Canal System 2 elucidated the various and changing patterns of interaction within the community and across apparent community boundaries. Among other things, Abbott found that individuals or households within the community maintained their own extracommunity exchange networks and thus that some kinds of interaction crosscut community boundaries. Similar evidence of extracommunity networks has been documented by Harry's (1997) work at Marana and Gilpin and Purcell's (2000) work at the Peach Springs Chacoan

COMMUNITY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

outlier. Researchers have also focused on understanding the nature of intracommunity interaction (e.g., Harry and Bayman 2000; Mobley-Tanaka 2001), and, not surprisingly, the nature of interaction networks varies, depending on the kinds of materials and the particular households involved. Clearly, interaction is an important component of communities, but even researchers who emphasize interaction (rather than spatialization) seem to recognize that communities are something more than interaction networks. Whether they exist at one or several scales, communities are somehow something special; community members share bonds that are rarely extended beyond the community, and there is a sense in which membership in a community is part of people's social identity. The corollary (Abbott 2000) is that people may maintain interaction networks that extend beyond their communities. Researchers who emphasize the spatial component of communities often focus on bonds of community membership. Coresidence, which facilitates regular face-to-face interaction, was emphasized in Murdock's now classic (1949) account, and it is certainly a convenient and archaeologically visible criterion. However, researchers recently have focused on understanding what it is about shared space or coresidence that creates a community. This question is asked at various spatial scales, including the site, the site cluster, and the irrigation system (e.g., Abbott 2000; Adler 1990; Fish et al. 1992; Kolb and Snead 1997; Varien 1999). At one level there seem to be many answers, most of which involve various kinds of interaction and integration. A sense of community is created through the shared construction and/or use of communal (and perhaps community-scale) ritual facilities. This perspective has been applied to Hohokam ball court and platform mound communities (Fish et al. 1992; Gregory and Nials 1985; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983), to Pueblo I communities in the northern Southwest (Adler and Wilshusen 1990), to Chacoan outliers (Kantner and Mahoney 2000; Powers et al.1983), and (as discussed below) it is basic to much of the work discussed in this volume. In other cases shared labor or the need to regulate the distribution of resources-such as are involved in irrigation systems or other agricultural features-seems to be the basis of community bonds (Doyel 1974; Kolb and Snead 1997). Finally, a number of researchers (Hegmon and Brady 2001; Varien 1999, 2000; Yaeger and Canuto 2000) have recently drawn on Giddens's (1984) concept of copresence as an essential component of communities (at least prior to telecommunications). Copresence is of course linked to coresidence, but the former term emphasizes interaction. More specifically, and again following Giddens, communities (and other social institutions) are constituted through the routinized and habitual interaction of people who are in copresence, and those institutions create the contexts for further interactions. Third, Yaeger and Canuto (2000) have recently emphasized the importance of conceiving of communities as socially constituted institutions, an approach they call a "modified interactionalist paradigm." This is in contrast to

268

MICHELLE HEGMON

approaches that "essentialize the community by focusing on its form and function" (2000:5), what Preucel (2000) called "behavioral" approaches. Most community studies, including probably all discussed in this chapter, do focus on form, function, and behavior to at least some extent, in that they make assumptions about the essential attributes of communities and thus about what communities are (coresidence, shared ritual, shared labor, and so forth). Even if some of these assumptions are not supported, the approaches are useful because they facilitate recognition of communities in the archaeological record, as well as comparisons over time and space. The approach emphasized by Yaeger and Canuto involves fewer assumptions and instead attempts to focus on the processes of interaction-which may be different in different casesthat constitute communities. They also recognize that their approach includes a level of flexibility that could lead to unhelpful generalization (2000:6). More practically, it seems to me that some kind of middle ground is possible (and this may be what Yaeger and Canuto intended), if archaeologists who focus on some essential attributes explicitly question what it is about those attributes that contributes to the constitution of communities. This is certainly the perspective that is taken (usually implicitly) by researchers who emphasize copresence. It is also suggested by Adler's (this volume) discussion of community as "an active social theater in which claims of resource access rights are mediated above the level of the primary residential or kin group;' regardless of spatial scale. A similar emphasis was brought forth in Varien's (1999) discussion of why shared ritual space is a good indicator of community, that is, because it brings people together in copresence, and it is part of a shared history of place. Fourth, and finally, although most approaches to communities seem to treat them as some kind of social institution (that is, natural), a number of researchers recently have discussed community as "imagined" in the minds of its members (Cohen 1985; Isbell 2000; PreuceI2000). Community then comes to be a symbol of identity and of social differences. In practice, focus on imagined communities involves interpretation of discourses of identity within communities, in part through analyses of symbolism and possibly the contrasting messages conveyed by different classes of material culture.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS The term construct has both negative connotations and optimistic implications. On the one hand, it suggests that we (the analysts) are constructing our units of analysis and thus may be imposing our ideas on other peoples and thus treating them as objects to be studied. On the other hand, the term also suggests that people have something to do with constructing the institutions of which they are a part; thus those people have the potential to effect change. I intend both meanings. We analysts need to be aware that the conceptual units we apply to other people may not coincide with their own understandings. We also need to be aware that social organizational forms were constructed in his-

COMMUNITY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

torical, social, and environmental contexts. At the same time, the fact that they were constructed does not make them any less real or lessen their impact on people's lives. Discussion of social constructs involves consideration of the relationship between individual action and social forms, or between agency and structure, subjects of intense archaeological interest in recent years (e.g., Cowgill 1993; Dobres and Robb 2000; Ferguson 1996; Johnson 1989; Shennan 1993). Social constructs (whether households, communities, classes, or nation-states) are rarely if ever organic wholes and should not be assumed to be units of consensual activity or decision making. Rather, as Adler (this volume) suggests, social constructs are the contexts in which decisions are made. Thus, research should be directed toward understanding what activities were organized at the level of a specific construct and which may have been organized at different scales. For example, Lightfoot (1994) identified and delineated households as units of shared residence (indicated by various criteria including interconnected rooms), but he also found that some activities (such as cooking and storage) were organized at the subhousehold leveL In a more general sense, if households are conceptualized as social constructs, then activities organized at the household level and architecture that bounds the household will reinforce the existence of that construct as a social unit. Thus agency (the activities, including architectural construction) derives from and contributes to the structure (the household organization); agency is necessary to reproduce, and can also transform or even overthrow, the structure. This again is what Giddens (1984) calls structuration. From this perspective (and contrary to some recent statements [esp. Shennan 1993]) I think it is important to understand agency as something more than individual motivation or the rules of a game. Agency is probably best conceptualized as the generative processes, or praxis (sensu Marx 1977), that makes history, both modern and ancient. Also related to the idea of social constructs are the concepts of reification and naturalization. Reification is an analytic process, the tendency of analysts to assign labels to processes or relationships and then to assume that those labels stand for clear-cut entities. As Eric Wolf (1982:3) put it: "Concepts like 'nation: 'society: and 'culture' name bits and threaten to turn names into things:' Varien clearly articulated this problem with respect to the concept of community: "It is tempting to describe communities as entities, thereby reifying the concept and implying that communities somehow act. But it is important to remember that it is people, not communities, who act" (1999:20; see also Yaeger and Canuto 2000:5). Analytically, we cannot avoid labeling our constructs; language is part of the research process. But we have to realize that we do not always know what our analytical entities meant to the people of the past; thus, we should consider interpretation of these entities to be a key research problem. Naturalization is a parallel but internal process in that it involves the reification of one's own social and cultural constructs by making them appear

270

MICHELLE HEGMON

timeless, «natural;' and thus not subject to change. On the one hand, archaeologists must be wary of naturalizing our own society's concepts by «finding" them in the archaeological record, for example, applying a nuclear family (man-the-provider) model to early hominids (Lovejoy 1981; see discussion in Zihlman 1997; also Conkey 1991). On the other hand, naturalization was probably an important social process in the past, and people may have given their own social constructs a time depth and materiality that made them appear to be natural and thus immutable. The persistence of traditional forms-such as the similarity ofkivas to ancestral pithouses (Mindeleffs 1989 [1891] principle of «survivals"; see Lipe and Hegmon [1989]) and the common placement of Pueblo III kivas in Basketmaker pit structures (e.g., at Knobby Knee Stockade [Morris 1991] )-may be examples of such naturalization. The longevity of central Mesa Verde region communities and their material manifestations (e.g., communal ritual architecture) may be another. Finally, the term construct and related concepts provide an understanding of change that is particularly amenable to archaeological application. If social constructs or structures are not viewed as static entities but as human creations, then change comes to be seen as a normal and internal process, a process that can potentially be understood without reference to external factors (a perspective common to both Marxist dialectics [see Harvey 1996:Chapter 2] and recent developments in complexity theory [Kauffman 1995] ).At the same time, change is not simply taken for granted or assumed to be constant. Not everything people do causes change; rather, the problem is to understand those points that are particularly important in effecting and directing change. In archaeology theoretical developments in the last few decades (e.g., Cordell and Plog 1979; Shennan 1993) have made clear the futility of trying to understand the past as a series of static stages (whether bands, tribes, and chiefdoms or

Pueblo I, II, and III). Instead, we recognize that our chronological periods are analytical constructs and try to understand the overall diachronic processes, as well as transformations, at particular times and places. To put this discussion into more concrete terms, an understanding of the community associated with Sand Canyon Pueblo is provided by considerations of how it came to be across time and space. Survey data (Adler 1990, 1992, 1996; Varien et al. 1996) show that as people moved across the landscape, they repeatedly built their large communal/ritual structures in certain locales, what Varien (this volume) calls persistent communities (see also Schlanger 1992). This construction would have established these locales as important places on the landscape, and the area around Sand Canyon Pueblo was one of the most long-lived of those places. It may have had a settlement cluster around the Casa Negra great kiva as early as the late tenth century (Adler 1992:18). It definitely had a late eleventh/early twelfth century great house and great kiva complex (Casa Negra) and may have been the only locality in the northern San Juan region with two proximate large late sites (Sand Canyon and Goodman Point pueblos). Sand Canyon Pueblo may have been the largest site in the last few

COMMUNITY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

decades of the occupation of the region. In addition, recent discussions of the revival of Chacoan symbolism in the architecture and pottery of the thirteenth century (Bradley 1996; Fowler and Stein 1992; Kintigh et al. 1996) suggest that the people who built and lived in thirteenth-century sites deliberately cultivated links with the past and thus may have naturalized their social constructs. Although Sand Canyon Pueblo was built in just a few decades, the community of which it was a part was symbolically constructed and situated on the landscape over the course of centuries. Varien's (1999) discussion of the land-tenure system provides a second and more specific example of the way symbolic forms were constructed. This case is particularly powerful-and serves as an example of structuration (Giddens 1984)-because he makes clear how the day-to-day activities of people transformed the structure and created a new social construct. He argues that individuals, households, and perhaps some larger groups were the agents who negotiated residential movement in a social landscape, that is, in a structure defined in terms of communities. Their agency in turn constituted the communities and transformed the structure-the use of the landscape, the construction of sites, the land-tenure system-that became the new setting for future generations' agency. Varien's discussion of the land-tenure system (which builds on Adler's [1990, 1996] work) and the construction of social forms also seems to accept the related premise that change is part of the natural course of events. The question then becomes «Why did change proceed in these particular directions?" The answers may not be totally new (decreasing rainfall after 1150 and increasing violence in the thirteenth century), but they may be understandable in new ways. That is, given the existing land-tenure system, as natural productivity decreased, claims to particularly productive locales became more critical to survival; thus, mechanisms were developed to formalize those claims. 4 A second example ofthis perception of change as natural is the fairly recent conceptualization of migration as a process rather than an event (e.g., Cameron 1995; Cameron and Tomka 1993; Duff1998; Lipe 1995; Nelson 2000; Varien et al. 1996). Several lines of evidence and reasoning contribute to this understanding. Analyses of agricultural productivity and the paleoclimate (Dean and Van West, this volume; Van West 1994) make clear that people were not simply forced to leave by a sudden climatic disaster, and there are indications that parts of the region were depopulated even before the beginning of the thirteenth century (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Lipe 1995; Wilshusen, this volume). Even the ultimate migration in the late thirteenth century apparently spanned several decades and took a variety of forms (Bradley 1992a; Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Ortman et al. 2000). Overall, emigration from the region is now seen as a decision that may have been influenced by «pull" factors from the outside, as well as by negative local «pushes" (Lipe 1995). Lipe (1995) has suggested that although various factors (including violence, population growth, and climatic deterioration) might explain some population decline and the

271

272

MICHELLE HEGMON

movement of some people from the region, they do not explain the almost total depopulation. The concept of structuration might contribute to a more satisfying explanation. That is, as Lipe suggests, we need to consider the effects of out-migration and population decline: How did the actions of some people contribute to the dramatic transformation of the structure? In other words, if we understand how late-thirteenth-century communities were constructed, perhaps we can better understand how it came to be that their construction could no longer be sustained.

BOUNDARIES AND SOCIAL SCALE All activities that created the archaeological record were carried out by individuals or groups of individuals. But to what extent were those groups bounded, such that membership in one group precluded membership in another? Were other activities organized at the same scale? Is there evidence regarding how the groups were symbolically constituted or associated with certain places? These questions are relevant not only to studies of various activities but also to the concept of structuration. That is, if a social group is also a unit of activity, then the organization of those activities may serve to naturalize the existence of the unit and reproduce the structure. On the other hand, it is likely that some key cultural units-such as Pueblo clans-are important symbols of identity and are relevant to marriage practices but are not commonly units of day-to-day activities (Whiteley 198sa, 1985b). In this discussion I look to several lines of evidence and analyses. Clusters of settlement (evident to some degree by A.D. 1000 in the northern San Juan region) are taken as a starting point, that is, a group that might constitute a community of some sort. I draw on studies by Adler (1990,1996) and Varien (1999) regarding changing land-tenure systems to consider the economic importance of the clusters. I also draw on Varien's (1999) estimates of residential mobility to consider the permeability of groupings represented by the clusters. The construction and use of public architecture is interpreted as representative of some kind of group activities and also as potential symbols of community. Finally, evidence of exchange at various levels and the organization and construction of residential architecture provide additional insights into how individuals and their activities related to community membership. The delineation and boundedness of social units seem to have increased over time in the central Mesa Verde region (Varien et al. 1996). I would suggest that social boundaries were probably minimal when settlement/population began increasing after A.D. 1000. The high degree of household residential mobility at this time (Varien 1999, this volume), and the fact that many room blocks are small and comprise only one or a few unit pueblos/households suggests that people could have moved among residential communities with relative ease. Although !Kung foragers may seem to have little in common with

COMMUNITY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

the eleventh-century farmers in the northern San Juan region, Lee's (1979) description of !Kung organization provides a model that may help us understand this kind of mobility. That is, the !Kung have relatively stable groups, which "own" waterholes, and most individuals are members of one group at anyone time. However, most people also have ties to other groups; they can and do switch between groups for social and economic reasons, and social boundaries between groups are minimal. The regular spacing of Chacoan great houses in the northern San Juan region and the fact that they were built (mostly during the eleventh century) in preexisting settlement clusters have been interpreted as indications that community organization was extant before the great houses were constructed (Varien et al. 1996:101, citing Adler 1992). Certainly there must have been communities of people who erected the great houses, but it is not clear to what extent these communities were socially bounded. Although settlements were clustered, some clusters are more tightly defined than others. It is possible that the (presumably communal) construction of great houses strengthened bonds between-that is, integrated-the builders (see Adler and Wilshusen 1990), although it also might have involved power struggles and social divisions (Potter 1997; Sebastian 1992). Even rough estimates of the labor involved in building the great houses provide some insight into the relationship between their construction and community organization. The amount of labor and scale of organization required for some aspects of the construction of the large towns in Chaco Canyon may have been enormous. For example, approximately 5,000 beams were harvested for the construction of Chetro Ketl in the span of two or three years (Wills 2000, citing Dean and Warren 1983). In contrast, Lekson (1986:22) calculated that even the largest construction events in Chaco Canyon could have been accomplished with a 30-person crew in about 22 months (that is, 660 person-months). Wills's more recent calculations may be more accurate for some of the large towns in Chaco Canyon, but Lekson's more modest esti-

mates are probably more applicable to the northern outliers, both because the buildings are much smaller and because trees were much more readily available. The Ansel Hall site (Guthe 1949; Rohn n.d.), which has a great house, a great kiva, and a large tower kiva, provides a good basis for estimation because it is associated with a particularly tight cluster of approximately 36 unit pueblo residences that apparently represent two components of occupation. If we assume that Lekson's (1996) estimates are applicable to each of the three large structures, then 1,980 person-months were required to build all three. The 36 unit pueblos were clearly not all occupied at once, but ifwe assume that the site represents 100 years of occupation, that the use life of a household residence was 25 years, and that each household has two members who could participate in the construction, then the total labor available over the course of a century was 19,200 person-months. Even if these obviously rough calculations are off

273

274

MICHELLE HEGMON

by several order of magnitude, they suggest that only a fraction of the labor available in a site cluster was necessary to construct the public architecture. The unit of great house use, and especially great kiva use, may have been larger than the unit of construction; certainly the larger great kivas could hold hundreds of people. The problem is determining whether the people who jointly participated in great house/great kiva rituals constituted a sustained unit of organization or activity. It is likely that ongoing research on great house organization-investigating whether they were economically important storage facilities and how surrounding settlements interacted-will provide some answers (Kantner and Mahoney 2000). It is also likely that the answers will be different for the many different kinds of great house communities (Jalbert and Cameron 2000). The period of great house use (ca. A.D. 1050-1150) is generally a time of flux in residential architecture, when residential mobility decreased and masonry construction became more common (Varien 1999, this volume). If we understood a great house and associated sites as well as we understand Sand Canyon Pueblo and the post-1150 small sites, we would probably have a much clearer idea of how they were associated and the nature of great house community organization; fortunately, this understanding may be forthcoming (Kantner and Mahoney 2000). Mahoney's (2000) research on great houses (including the Cottonwood Wash great house in southeast Utah) and surrounding sites problematized the idea of bounded communities at this time, in that she argued that residential great house communities could not have been demographically self-sustaining. Residential communities may have been well defined, in that they comprised clusters of residences that shared in the construction and use of public architecture. At the same time, boundaries between the great house communities seem to have been quite permeable,

individuals may have sequentially or even simultaneously been part of several communities, and at least one study from another region suggests that community members maintained their own separate exchange networks (Gilpin and Purcell 2000). The A.D. 1150-1240 period is more difficult to interpret because some lines of evidence suggest increased boundedness, whereas other lines of evidence suggest the contrary. Increased clustering of settlements, the beginnings of aggregation, and the decrease in residential mobility all suggest that boundedness increased at this time. Certainly people had ties to certain locales, ties that extended across the generations and that may have involved a fairly formal land-tenure system (Adler 1996; Varien 1999). Whether these ties constituted bounded social units is unclear, however, particularly given that dispersed settlements were still common and that loose alliances among several clusters of settlements may also have formed (Lipe, this volume). Furthermore, at many sites the residential architecture consists of rows of room blocks that were probably formed through accretional construction. Finally, in contrast to the

COMMUNITY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

preceding period, many settlement clusters lack clear-cut communal architecture after 1150. The mid-to-Iate-thirteenth-century settlements are more likely to have been units of some kinds of activities, including defense (Kuckelman, this volume). These aggregated towns, often surrounded by walls, and sometimes separated by mostly uninhabited areas, suggest that community boundaries were well defined. 5 The longevity of settlement (and perhaps sense of place) at these sites and the large amount of public architecture (including great kivas and triwalled structures, as well as architecture with unknown function or AWUF [Thompson et aI. 1997]) indicate that these boundaries had symbolic components as well. At the same time, Potter's (1998) research suggests that these large sites were spatially not well integrated. Households were still the basic unit of residence and probably construction in the aggregated towns, but there were also some households that seem to have been part of larger room blocks representative of some kind of corporate group. Furthermore, in this later period household residential mobility may have been restricted both by the threat ofviolence (Kuckelman et aI. 2000) and by the enclosed nature of the residential communities. Varien's (1999) measures of residential mobility indicate a major decrease in the frequency of movement. Furthermore, in many cases when people left their community, they left the region. Movement among neighboring communities may have continued to some degree, and Varien (personal communication 2001) suggests that communities such as Goodman Point and Sand Canyon communities may have been trying to attract new members. There was also positive (movement of goods) and possibly negative (conflict) interaction across those boundaries (Pierce et aI., this volume; Kuckelman, this volume; Kuckelman et aI. 2000). But overall, evidence suggests (Neily 1983; Varien 1999) that intercommunity interaction decreased in comparison to earlier periods. IDENTITY Identity is in some ways the obverse of social boundaries. Whereas boundaries involve group relations, identity situates the individual within larger spheres of social relations (see Wiessner 1984). And whereas clear-cut social boundaries usually involve differences in identity, differences in identity need not involve social boundaries. I consider identity separately to give a different perspective on the issue of boundaries and because identity is key to many important social constructs, including some definitions of community (see Adler 1996:350; Isbell 2000; Kolb and Snead 1997; PreuceI2000). In addition, I wish to explore different sets of data, particularly regarding material culture style, and other kinds of identity that may have been important in the past in the central Mesa Verde region. If we have learned anything from archaeological research on style, it is that there are different kinds of style that express different kinds

275

MICHELLE HEGMON

and levels of identity and other kinds of information (Hegmon 1992). We have few detailed stylistic analyses of ceramics or other kinds of material culture for the later periods in the central Mesa Verde region (see Hegmon 1995b for the ninth century), but it is still possible to make some tentative interpretations. There are few indications that at the time of Chacoan great houses separate identities were being expressed, at any level, across the northern San Juan region. The presence of some exotic goods (not many, but more than in the later times) is indicative of interaction with areas to the south. Painted ceramic (Mancos Black-on-white) and architectural (great house) styles are generally variable but also not distinct from those to the south. The late (ca. 1100-1140) occupation of Chaco Canyon is sometimes given the label "McElmo" phase because architectural and ceramic styles are similar to those in the northern San Juan region (Judge 1989). I am not sure we know exactly what this McElmo style means (migrants or influence from the northern San Juan region? northward relocation of Chacoan organization?), but it could be interpreted generally as a continued expression of widespread similarity. Differentiation across the northern San Juan region, and differentiation between the region and areas to the south, increases over time, although the timing of changes is not well established. Architectural (for example, keyholeshaped kivas) and ceramic (Mesa Verde Black-on-white) styles become more distinct in the thirteenth century, and very little material seems to be imported into the region. The concentration of settlement in the central Mesa Verde region (Varien 1999; Varien et al. 1996) may have served to isolate that area. In addition, there are some indications of increasingly separate technological styles in the central and western parts of the region. Specifically, carbon paint (characteristic of McElmo and Mesa Verde Black-on-white in the central Mesa Verde region) is rare in the west, and the often vitrified black paste that is common in the western region is rare in the center. In the second part of the thirteenth century identity seems to be expressed at several levels. It is my impression that the elaborate Mesa Verde Black-onwhite design style is fairly standardized and that any rules of design execution were shared at least across the central Mesa Verde region (although this impression should certainly be subject to further testing, possibly following methods developed by Van Keuren 1999). Thus, any cultural meaning invoked by the design style (see Ortman 20oob) was shared across a large area (although it is possible that more subtle smaller scale differences were also present). Similarly, styles of residential architecture (especially kiva form) were also shared across the region. In contrast, the styles of construction of aggregated sites and ritual architecture are shared less broadly, as Adler (this volume) notes. In general, there are cliff dwellings on Mesa Verde, canyon-rim sites in the McElmo/Yellow Jacket drainages (although some have linear room blocks and others are more clustered), large square towers in the Hovenweep area, and sites perched on small mesas further to the west. There are also some suggestions that different kinds of AWUF are associated with these different

COMMUNITY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

kinds of sites (Thompson et al. 1997). Obviously the different construction strategies were influenced by differences in landforms, but I do not think the differences should be dismissed as only a matter of topography. That is, construction in the various areas could have been more similar; people chose to use the different topographic features in ways that emphasized difference. Furthermore, even if the architectural differences can be attributed primarily to landform differences, once constructed, those differences could still have gained cultural significance. That is, people who lived in cliff dwellings may have identified more with others who lived in similar kinds of structures. Finally, as Lipe (this volume) notes, public architecture exhibits a great deal of variability and may be an expression of residential community identity. RETURNING TO COMMUNITY Archaeologists interested in human society face a dilemma. If we use words-such as community-that are part of the everyday vocabulary, we remind ourselves of our connections with our research subject, and we increase our chances of striking a positive chord with the general public (see Varien and Wilshusen, this volume). On the other hand, if we use common words, we also risk imprecise definition and slippage between analytical and popular concepts, and we risk naturalizing our current concepts by «finding" them in the past. A number of definitions and conceptions of community are used in this volume, implicitly and explicitly. First, the definition used by Shore (19'93) and by many social theorists (e.g., Williams 1976) emphasizes the shared identity and solidarity of community. Ortman and Bradley (this volume) explore this issue, and it is implicit in many other chapters. Second, community is a group that has something in common. In this sense there can be subsistence communities, demographic communities, ritual communities, and so forth. These various communities are not necessarily isomorphic and may encompass different and overlapping scales (Mahoney 2000). Third, a specific subset of the second, community may be a unit of residence, whether clustered or dispersed (Wills and Leonard 1994). Fourth, communities are sometimes considered to be units of decision making or (more properly) contexts in which decisions are made (Adler, this volume). Finally, community can be used, fairly precisely, as an analytical concept, although this usage does not necessarily resolve the question of how and whether the analytical construct relates to cultural constructs (see Varien 1999, this volume). Anyone of these definitions may be useful and applicable in certain contexts, but I think it is obvious that they relate to different scales and different kinds of social processes. Furthermore, some can be equated with clear-cut social units, and others cannot. But the real problem is that these various definitions are often conflated, and the resulting implicit assumption is that the residential unit is the unit of decision making, is the unit of shared identity,

277

MICHELLE HEGMON

and so forth. This kind of conflation is a pervasive (and difficult) problem that is not limited to the applications in this volume (see a similar discussion by Isbell 2000); it plagues much of the research that has been done on ancient communities and on other social constructs archaeologists examine in the past. In this volume as a whole communities are generally equated with large sites and/or ritual structures, following Varien. At the same time, communities are also often discussed as social entities and/or as units of decision making and activity. Herein lies the problem. Even if one accepts the assumption that rituals are integrative6 (rather than being arenas of competition or power struggles [Potter 1997]), the ritual communities are not necessarily bounded social units or units of activity or communities in other senses of the word. I know that the authors are aware of some of these problems. Their perceptions and concerns are made clear in their emphasis on community heterogeneity and in their analyses of differences among communities. But the problem remains that the word is used in so many ways, and it is so easy to slip between usages and thus conflate meanings. So I close with a few suggestions: 1. We need to identify the different kinds and scales of communities (residence, identity, activity), the ways in which they do or do not overlap, and the situations in which they are isomorphic. A classic problem in some schools of historical research has been to understand when and how a community of identity (for example, the working class) became a community of decision making and activity (that is, a political force) (Thompson 1963). Archaeologists are in a good position to contribute to these kinds of understandings. 2. Almost all research emphasis has been on households or communities. More attention needs to be devoted to understanding intermediate-sized organizations such as corporate groups, such as Adler's (1990, this volume) multihousehold groups, and Bernardini's (2000) interhousehold kiln use groups. 3. Crow Canyon's research emphasis has (necessarily) been on community continuity in the context of relatively high residential/household mobility. Now that continuity is well established, there needs to be more emphasis on change in the nature of community, how "the form, composition, and organization of the community change through time" (Varien 1999:198). Ongoing research at the Shields Pueblo and the Albert Porter Preserve is an important step in this direction. 4. We need to continue to emphasize and understand the connection between community and place (Feld and Basso 1996; Harvey 1996; Varien 1999). That is, the community associated with Sand Canyon Pueblo (A.D. 1240-1290) was a unit of many things, but the Sand Canyon community (ca. A.D. 10001290) was something different; over the course of time it was sometimes a community of residence, of defense, of productive organization, and so forth. And among other things, it was probably always a symbol of identity linked to an important place on the landscape. Many of us learned about places on the

COMMUNITY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

northern San Juan landscape from Sandy Thompson. It is time we put more of his generously shared insights to good use. Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Mark Varien and Barbara Mills for their valuable comments and insights on earlier drafts of this chapter and to Jennifer Brady for sharing insights and references.

NOTES 1. Varien (1999:Tables 7.1, 7.2; this volume) includes Casa Negra in both Period Two (A.D. 1051-1150) and Period Three (A.D. 1151-1225). 2. The Shields Pueblo is classified as part of the Sand Canyon locality, but it is at the head of a separate canyon and is generally considered to be part of the Goodman Point community. 3. Mahoney (2000:20) builds her concept of sustainable communities on Kolb and Snead's (1997) discussion of communities as units of social and subsistence reproduction. However, it is not clear (at least to me) that Kolb and Snead were referring to biological-in contrast to social-reproduction. 4. Another example of this kind of reasoning is Judge's (1989) discussion of the temporal coincidence of drought and the end of the Chaco ritual system. That is, although the drought may not have caused severe subsistence failures, it had a major effect on the regional system because Chacoan peoples interpreted it as indicative of failures of their ritual system. 5. The area around some large late sites (such as Sand Canyon, Goodman Point, and Yellow Jacket pueblos) was sparsely settled at this time. In contrast, in other areas (such as lower Sand Canyon and Mesa Verde) site density was quite high, and Mahoney et aL (2000) argued that archaeologists have underestimated the number and impact of people living in small sites in the mid to late thirteenth century. 6. Ritual may be a form or context of decision making (Rappaport 1971), but it is a considerable stretch to automatically equate the scale of ritual with the unit of decision making and activity (see Johnson and Earle 1987).

279

References Abbott, D. R. 2000

Ceramics and Community Organization among the Hohokam. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Adams, E. C. 1975 Causes of Prehistoric Settlement Systems in the Piedra District, Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1984 Plan ofOperations for Work to be Conducted on Bureau ofLand Management Administered Land. Crow Canyon Campus, Center for American Archaeology, Cortez, Colorado. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Resource Area Office, Durango, Colorado. 1985 Sand Canyon Pueblo: A Thirteenth Century Anasazi Ceremonial Center in Southwestern Colorado. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. 1989 Changing Form and Function in Western Pueblo Ceremonial Architecture from A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1500. In The Architecture ofSocial Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 155-160. Occasional Papers, no. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1991 The Origin and Development ofthe Pueblo Katsina Cult. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Adams, K. R. 1992 The Environmental Archaeology Program. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 99-104. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1993a Carbonized Plant Remains. In The Duckfoot Site, Volume 1: Descriptive Archaeology, edited by R. R. Lightfoot and M. C. Etzkorn, pp. 195-220. Occasional Papers, no. 3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1993b Mesa Verde Fire Effects: An Ecological and Ethnobotanical Study ofVegetation Recovery after the Long Mesa Fire ofJuly 1989. Study period July 1990-0ctober 1992. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Report submitted to Mesa Verde National Park, Mesa Verde, Colorado. 1993C Phenology (Seasonality) Studies ofNative Plants in the Sand Canyon Locality Considered Important Prehistoric Resources. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1994 Southwest Anthropogenic Ecology. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1999a Identification Criteria for Plant Remains. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing [HTML Title], edited by M. D. Varien, Appendix B. Available: . Date of use: August 6, 2001. 1999b Macrobotanical Remains. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing [HTML Title], edited by M. D. Varien, Chapter 16. Available: . Date of use: August 6, 2001. Adler, M.A. 1989 Ritual Facilities and Social Integration in Nonranked Societies. In The Architecture ofSocial Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 35-52. Occasional Papers, no. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 281

REFERENCES

282

1990

1992 1994

Communities of Soil and Stone: An Archaeological Investigation of Population Aggregation among the Mesa Verde Region Anasazi, A.D. 900-1300. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The Upland Survey. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 11-23. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Population Aggregation and the Anasazi Social Landscape: A View from the Four Corners. In The

Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study ofPrehistoric Social Organization, 1996

edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard, pp. 85-101. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Land Tenure, Archaeology, and the Ancestral Pueblo Social Landscape. Journal ofAnthropological

Archaeology 15:337-371. Adler, M. A. (editor) 1996

The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Adler, M. A., and M. Metcalf 1991

Archaeological Survey ofLower East Rock and Sand Canyons, Montezuma County, Colorado. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Letter report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management' San Juan Resource Area Office, Durango, Colorado.

Adler, M. A., and M. D. Varien 1994 The Changing Face of the Community in the Mesa Verde Region, A.D. 1000-1300. In Proceedings ofthe Anasazi Symposium, 1991, compiled by A. Hutchinson and J. E. Smith, pp. 83-97. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, Colorado. Adler, M. A., and R. H. Wilshusen 1990 Large-Scale Integrative Facilities in Tribal Societies: Cross-Cultural and Southwestern U.S. Examples.

World Archaeology 22:133-145. Ahlstrom, R. V. N. 1985 The Interpretation of Tree-Ring Dates. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1997 Sources ofVariation in the Southwestern Tree-Ring Record. Kiva 62:321-348. Ahlstrom, R. V. N., C. R. Van West, and J. S. Dean 1995 Environmental and Chronological Factors in the Mesa Verde-Northern Rio Grande Migration. Journal

ofAnthropological Archaeology 14:125-142. Akins,N.J. 1986 5MT8371 Faunal Remains. In Exacavations at SMT8371, an Isolated Pueblo II Pit Structure in Montezuma County, Colorado, by D. D. Dykeman, pp. 127-131. Studies in Archaeology, no. 2. San Juan County Archaeological Research Center and Library, Bloomfield, New Mexico. 1987 Faunal Remains from Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, Volume III, Part II: Artifactual and Biological Analyses, edited by F. C. Mathien and T. C. Windes, pp. 445-650. Publications in Archeology, no. 18F. National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1988a Faunal Assemblages from the South Canal Sites. In Archaeological Investigations on South Canal, compiled by K. A. Kuckelrnan and J. N Morris, pp. 529-548. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report, no. 11. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado. 1988b The Bodo Canyon Faunal Remains. In Archaeological Investigations in the Bodo Canyon Area, La Plata County, Colorado, prepared by S. L. Fuller, pp. 421-433. UMTRAArchaeological Report, no. 25. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado.

REFERENCES

Anderson, B. 1987

Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism. Verso, London.

Anderson, E. 1966 Animal Remains. In Contributions to Mesa Verde Archaeology, III: Site 866, and the Cultural Sequence at Four Villages in the Far View Group, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, by R. H. Lister, pp. 113-115. University of Colorado Studies Series in Anthropology, no. 12. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. 1980 Fauna. In The Durango South Project: Archaeological Salvage ofTwo Late Basketmaker III Sites in the Durango District, edited by J. D. Gooding, pp. 123-149. Anthropological Papers, no. 34. University ofArizona, Tucson. Anschuetz, K. F. 1998

Not Waitingfor the Rain: Integrated Systems ofWater Management for Intensive Agricultural Production in North-Central New Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Applegarth, J., and L. H. Feldman Analysis of Faunal Materials. In A Final Contract Report on the Salvage Excavation ofArchaeological Sites Impacted by the Colorado Division ofHighways Project No. RS0184, Mancos North, by S. M. Riches and R. W. Biggs, Appendix E.

1981

Arnold, D. E. 1985

Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Baker,H.G. Characteristics and Modes of Origin ofWeeds. In The Genetics ofColonizing Species, edited by H. G. Baker and G. L. Stebbins, pp. 147-172. Academic Press, New York.

1965

Baker,S.A. The Question of Cannibalism and Violence in the Anasazi Culture: A Case Study from San Juan County, Utah. Blue Mountain Shadows 13:30-41.

1994

Barth, F. 1978 Conclusions. In Scale and Social Organization, edited by F. Barth, pp. 253-283. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Bauer,D. The Dynamics of Communal and Hereditary Land Tenure among the Tigray of Ethiopia. In The Question ofthe Commons: The Culture and Ecology ofCommunal Resources, edited by B. J. McKay and J. M. Acheson, pp. 217-230. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1987

Bauman,Z. 2001

Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Baxter, L. Rampart Hills North: Climate Correlation Investigation. Manuscript on file, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1996

Baxter, M. J. Statistical Analysis of Chemical Compositional Data and the Comparison of Analyses. Archaeometry

1992

34: 26 7-277.

284

1993

REFERENCES

Component Analysis in Archaeology. Manuscript on file, Missouri University Research Reactor, Columbia.

Beaglehole, E.

1936

Hopi Hunting and Hunting Ritual. Publications in Anthropology, no. 4. Yale University, New Haven.

Beezley, J. A. Faunal Remains. In Archaeological Data Recovery at Four Anasazi Sites on White Mesa along U.S. Highway 191, San Juan County, Utah, edited by J. Firor, R. A. Greubel, and A. D. Reed. Report on file, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City.

1998

Bent, A. M., and H. E. Wright Jr. Pollen Analysis of Surface Materials and Lake Sediments from the Chuska Mountains, New Mexico.

1963

Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin 74:491-500. Berger, E. F.

1993

Crow Canyon: Pioneering Education and Archaeology on the Frontier in Southwestern Colorado. Southwest Research and Educational Services, Sedona, Arizona.

Bernardini, W. 1998 Conflict, Migration, and the Social Environment: Interpreting Architectural Change in Early and Late Pueblo IV Aggregations. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, edited by K. A. Spielmann, pp. 91-114. Anthropological Papers, no. 51, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1999 Reassessing the Scale of Social Action at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Kiva 64:447-470. 2000 Kiln Firing Groups: Interhousehold Economic Collaboration and Social Organization in the Northern American Southwest. American Antiquity 65:365-377. Bertram, J. B. An Analysis ofArchaeofaunal Assemblages, Nonhuman Burials, and Worked Bone Items: Hovenweep Laterals Project. In Archaeological Exacavations on the Hovenweep Laterals, authored by J. N. Morris, pp. 991-1104. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report, no. 16. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado.

1991

Bieber, A. M., Jr., D. W. Brooks, G. Harbottle, and E. V. Sayre Application of Multivariate Techniques to Analytical Data on Aegean Ceramics. Archaeometry18:59-74.

1976

Billman, B. R., P. M. Lambert, and B. L. Leonard Cannibalism, Warfare, and Drought in the Mesa Verde Region in the Twelfth Century A.D. American

2000

Antiquity 65:145-178. Binford, L. R. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.

1980

Bishop, R. L., and H. Neff Compositional Data Analysis in Archaeology. In Archaeological Chemistry, Volume IV, edited by R. o. Allen, pp. 57-86. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.

1989

REFERENCES

Blanton, R. E., G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowalski, and P. N. Peregrine 1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37(1):1-14. Blanton, R. E., S. A. Kowalewski, G. Feinman, and J. Appel 1981

Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison ofChange in Three Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Blau,P.M. 1975 Parameters of Social Structure. In Approaches to the Study ofSocial Structure, edited by P. M. Blau, pp. 220-253. Free Press, New York. Blinman,E. 1988 Justification and Procedures for Ceramic Dating. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Additive and Reductive Technologies, compiled by E. Blinman, C. J. Phagan, and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 501-544. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1989 Potluck in the Protokiva: Ceramics and Ceremonialism in Pueblo I Villages. In The Architecture ofSocial Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 113-124. Occasional Papers, no. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1994 Adjusting the Pueblo I Chronology: Implications for Culture Change at Dolores and in the Mesa Verde Region at Large. In Proceedings ofthe Anasazi Symposium, 1991, compiled by A. Hutchinson and J. E. Smith, pp. 51-60. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, Colorado. Blinman, E., and C. Swink 1997 Technology and Organization ofAnasazi Trench Kilns. In The Prehistory and History ofCeramic Kilns, edited by P. M. Rice, pp. 85-102. Ceramics and Civilization, voL VII. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, Ohio. Blinman, E., and C. D. Wilson 1988 Overview ofA.D. 600-800 Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Dolores Project Area. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Additive and Reductive Technologies, compiled by E. Blinman, C. J. Phagan, and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 395-423. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1992 Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Northern San Juan Region A.D. 600-900. In Ceramic Production and Distribution, an Integrated Approach, edited by G. J. Bey III and C. A. Pool, PP.155-173. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 1993 Ceramic Perspectives on Northern Anasazi Exchange. In The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems ofPrehistoric Exchange, edited by J. E. Ericson and T. G. Baugh, pp. 65-94. Plenum Press, New York. Bloomer, W. W. 1989 Moon House: A Pueblo III Period Cliff Dwelling Complex in Southeastern Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Boas, F. 1955

Primitive Art. Reprinted. Dover Publications, New York. Originally published 1927, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

286

REFERENCES

Bohannan, P. 1960 "Land," "Tenure;' and Land-Tenure. In African Agrarian Systems, edited by D. Biebuyck, pp. 101-11l. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bohrer, V. L. 1980 The Analysis of Ethnobotanical Remains. In Investigations at the Salmon Site: The Structure ofChacoan Society in the Northern Southwest III, edited by C. Irwin-Williams and P. H. Shelley. Final report to funding agencies, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. Bourdieu, P. 1990

The Logic ofPractice. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Bowyer, V. E., and K. R. Adams 2000 Sand Canyon Pueblo (5MT765) Archaeobotanical Project Descriptive Report. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Bradfield, M. 1971

The Changing Pattern ofHopi Agriculture. Occasional Paper, no. 30. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, London.

Bradley, B. A. Architectural Petroglyphs at Sand Canyon Pueblo (5MT765), Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 54:153-16l. Excavations in Public Architecture at Sand Canyon Pueblo: The 1991 Field Season. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Resource Area Office, Durango, Colorado. 1992a Excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 79-97. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. The Pottery of Sand Canyon Pueblo. Manuscript on file, Primitive Tech Enterprises, Inc., Cortez, Colorado. Planning, Growth, and Functional Differentiation at a Prehistoric Pueblo: A Case Study from SW Col1993 orado. Journal ofField Archaeology 20:23-42. Pitchers to Mugs: Chacoan Revival at Sand Canyon Pueblo. Kiva 61:241-255. Bradley, B. A., and M. J. Churchill 1994

1995

Excavations in Civic Architecture at Sand Canyon Pueblo: The 1992 Field Season. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Resource Area Office, Durango, Colorado. Annual Report ofthe 1993 Excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo (SMT76S). Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Resource Area Office, Durango, Colorado.

Bradley, C. S. 1998 Obligation and Children: Attitudes of Obligation in the Nurturing and Interpretation of Children. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Vermont College of Norwich University, Montpelier, Vermont. Brand,M. 1991 ZooarchaeologyofSand Canyon Pueblo (5MT765), Shorlene's Site (5MT3918), Roy's Ruin (5MT3930),

REFERENCES

Lillian's Site (5MT3936), and Troy's Tower (5MT3951), Colorado. Honor's Essay, Archaeology 499. Manuscript on file, Department ofArchaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Brandt, E. A. 1994 Egalitarianism, Hierarchy, and Centralization in the Pueblos. In The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study ofPrehistoric Social Organization, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard, pp. 9-23. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Braun, D. P., and S. Plog 1982 Evolution of"Tribal" Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North American Evidence. American

Antiquity 47:504-525. Breternitz, D. A. 1983 Is "Mesa Verde" a Prehistoric Cultural Anomaly? In Proceedings ofthe Anasazi Symposium, 1981, compiled and edited by J. Smith, pp. 85-88. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. 1993 The Dolores Archaeological Program: In Memoriam. American Antiquity 58:118-125. Breternitz, D.A.,A. H. Rohn Jr., and E.A. Morris (compilers) Prehistoric Ceramics ofthe Mesa Verde Region. Ceramic Series, no. 5. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1974

Brew,J.O. 1946

1949

The Archaeology ofAlkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The History ofAwatovi. In Franciscan Awatovi: The Excavation and Conjectural Reconstruction ofa 17thCentury Spanish Mission Establishment at a Hopi Indian Town in Northeastern Arizona, authored by R. G. Montgomery, W. Smith, and J. O. Brew, pp. 1-43. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 36. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Brisbin, J. 1993 Preliminary Report on Excavations of Prehistoric Kilns at Mesa Verde National Park. Manuscript on file, Mesa Verde National Park Research Center, Mesa Verde, Colorado. 1996 Mesa Verde Segment Pottery Kilns. In Mesa Verde Waterline Replacement Project Phase III Archaeological and Historical Studies, by G. Alves, J. M. Brisbin, J. A Bell, and C. L. Williams. Manuscript on file, Division of Research and Resource Management, Mesa Verde National Park, Mesa Verde, Colorado. Brock, S. L., and C. B. Ruff 1988 Diachronic Patterns of Change in Structural Properties of the Femur in the Prehistoric American Southwest. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 75:113-127. Brown,B.M. 1987 Population Estimation from Floor Area: A Restudy of"Naroll's Constant:' Behaviorial Science Research 21:1-41. Brues,A. 1946 Alkali Ridge Skeletons, Pathology and Anomaly. In Archaeology ofAlkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah, authored by J. O. Brew, pp. 327-329. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 21. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

288

REFERENCES

Bryan,K. 1922 Erosion and Sedimentation in the Papago Country, Arizona, with a Sketch of the Geology. In Contributions to the Geography ofthe United States, 1922, pp. 19-90. United States Geological Survey Bulletin 730B. Washington, D.C. 1940 Erosion in the Valleys of the Southwest. New Mexico Quarterly 10:227-232. 1954 The Geology ofChaco Canyon New Mexico in Relation to the Life and Remains ofthe Prehistoric Peoples of Pueblo Bonito. Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 122, no. 7. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Buge, D. E., and J. Schoenwetter 1977 Pollen Studies at Chimney Rock Mesa. In Archaeological Investigations at Chimney Rock Mesa: 1970-1972, by F. W. Eddy, pp. 77-80. Memoirs, no. 1. Colorado Archaeological Society, Boulder. Bullock, M. E. 1992 Morphological and Functional Analysis of a Pueblo III Anasazi Bone Tool Assemblage from Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department ofAnthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Burns,B. T. 1983 Simulated Anasazi Storage Behavior Using Crop Yields Reconstructed from Tree Rings: A.D. 652-1968. Ph.D dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University ofArizona, Tucson. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Cameron, C. M. 1987 Chipped Stone from Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, Volume III, Part I: Artifactual and Biological Analyses, edited by F. C. Mathien and T. C. Windes, pp. 231-278. Publications in Archeology, no. 18F. National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1990 The Effect ofVarying Estimates of Pit Structure Use-Life on Prehistoric Population Estimates in the American Southwest. Kiva 55:155-166. 1995 Migration and the Movement of Southwestern Peoples. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 14:104-124. Cameron, C. M. (editor) 1995 Special Issue: Migration and the Movement of Southwestern Peoples. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 14:99-250. Cameron, C. M., and S. A. Tomka (editors) Abandonment ofSettlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

1993

Cannon, M. D. 2000 Large Mammal Relative Abundance in Pithouse and Pueblo Period Archaeofaunas from Southwestern New Mexico: Resource Depression among the Mimbres-Mogollon? Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 19:317-347. Canuto, M. A., and J. Yaeger (editors) The Archaeology ofCommunities: A New World Perspective. Routledge, London.

2000

Carmichael, D. L. 1990 Patterns of Residential Mobility and Sedentism in the Jornada Mogollon. In Perspectives on

REFERENCES

Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 122-134. Westview Press, Boulder. Carr,C. 1995 A Unified Middle-Range Theory ofArtifact Design. In Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by C. Carr and J. E. Neitzel, pp. 171-258. Plenum Press, New York. Cater, J. D., and M. L. Chenault 1988 Kiva Use Reinterpreted. Southwestern Lore 54: (3) 19-32. Cattanach, G. S., Jr. 1980

Long House, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. Publications in Archeology, no. 7H. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Chandler, S. M.,A. D. Reed, and P. R. Nickens 1980

Ecological Variability and Archaeological Site Location in Southwestern Colorado: The Class II Cultural Resource Inventory ofthe Bureau ofLand Management's Sacred Mountain Planning Unit. Nickens and Associates. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, Montrose District Office, Montrose, Colorado.

Chao,V. 1992 Stylistic and Functional Variability within Sand Canyon Pueblo: A Ceramic Study. Unpublished senior honors thesis, Archaeology Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Charbonneau, P.O., R. White, and T. J. Bogdan 1999 Solar Astronomy in the Prehistoric Southwest. [HTML Title]. Available: . Date of use: February 19,2002. Chisholm, M. 1970

Rural Settlement and Land Use. Aldine, Chicago.

Churchill, M. J., K. A. Kuckelman, and M. D. Varien 1998 Public Architecture in the Mesa Verde Region, A.D. 900 to 1300. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle, Washington. Clark, J. J. 2001

Tracking Prehistoric Migrations: Pueblo Settlers among the Tonto Basin Hohokam. Anthropological Papers, no. 65. University ofArizona, Tucson.

Cohen,A.P. 1985

The Symbolic Construction ofCommunity. Tavistock Publications, New York.

Cole, S. J. 1990

Legacy on Stone: Rock Art ofthe Colorado Plateau and Four Corners Region. Johnson Books, Boulder, Colorado.

Colson,E. 1979 In Good Years and in Bad: Food Strategies of Self-Reliant Societies. Journal ofAnthropological Research 35: 18-2 9.

REFERENCES

Conkey, M. W. Original Narratives: The Political Economy of Gender in Archaeology. In Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era, edited by M. di Leonardo, pp. 102-139. University of California Press, Berkeley.

1991

Conkey, M. W., and J. Spector Archaeology and the Study of Gender, Academic Press, New York. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, voL 7, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 1-38. Academic Press, New York.

1984

Connolly, M. R. The Goodman Point Historic Land-Use Study. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 33-44. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

1992

Cooley, M. E. Late Pleistocene and Recent Erosion and Alluviation in Parts of the Colorado River System, Arizona and Utah. Geological Survey Research 1962: Short Papers in Geology, Hydrology, and Topography, Articles 1-59. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 450- B. Washington, D.C.

1962

Cordell, L. S. Migration and the Movement of Southwestern Peoples. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology

1995

14:104-124· 1996

1997

Big Sites, Big Questions: Pueblos in Transition. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 228-240. University ofArizona Press, Tucson. Archaeology ofthe Southwest. Academic Press, Orlando.

Cordell, L. S., and F. Plog Escaping the Confines of Normative Thought: A Reevaluation of Puebloan Prehistory. American Antiquity 44:405-429.

1979

Costin, C. L. Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, voL 3, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 1-56. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.

1991

Cowgill, G. L. Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology: Beyond Criticizing New Archaeology. American Anthropologist

1993

95:551-573·

Crotty, H. K. 2001 Shields, Shield Bearers, and Warfare Imagery in Anasazi Art, 1200-1500. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 65-83. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 2001 The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Field Manual [HTML Title]. Available: .

REFERENCES

Crown, P. L. 2000 Women's Role in Changing Cuisine. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown, pp. 221-266. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Crown, P. L., and T. A. Kohler 1994 Community Dynamics, Site Structure, and Aggregation in the Northern Rio Grande. In The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study ofPrehistoric Social Organization, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard, pp. 103-117. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Crown, P. L, J. D. Orcutt, and T. A. Kohler 1996 Pueblo Cultures in Transition: The Northern Rio Grande. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 188-204. University ofArizona Press, Tucson. Cutler, H. C., and T. W. Whitaker 1961 History and Distribution of the Cultivated Cucurbits in the Americas. American Antiquity 26:469-485. Czaplewski, N. J. 1988 Faunal Analysis. In The Archaeology ofthe Recapture Dam Pipeline Project, Phase I, San Juan County, Utah, by K. R. Montgomery and J. A. Montgomery. Report on file, Bureau of Land Management, Moab District. Darrah, W. C. (editor) 1948-1949 Journal of John F. Steward, May 22-November 3, 1871. Utah Historical Quarterly XVI, XVII, nos. 1-4, pp. 180-251. Davis,E.M. 2000 Archaeology, Education, and the Political Landscape of American Schools. Antiquity 74:194-198. Davis, J. C. 1986

Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Davis,W.E. 1985

Anasazi Subsistence and Settlement on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah. University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland.

Dean,J. S. 1984 Environmental Aspects of Human Activity-Locating Behavior. In Theory and Model Building: Refining

Survey Strategies for Locating Prehistoric Heritage Resources: Trial Formulations for Southwestern Forests,

1988 1993 1996a

edited by L. S. Cordell and D. F. Green, pp. 8-20. Cultural Resources Management Report, no. 3. U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Model ofAnasazi Behavioral Adaptation. In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 25-44. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Paleoenvironmental Variability in the American Southwest during the Last 2000 Years. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri. Demography, Environment, and Subsistence Stress. In Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by J. A. Tainter and B. B. Tainter, pp. 25-56. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, vol. 24. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

REFERENCES

1996b Kayenta Anasazi Settlement Transformations in Northeastern Arizona, A.D. 1150 to 1350. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 29-47. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Dean, J. s., W. H. Doelle, and J. D. Orcutt 1994 Adaptive Stress, Environment, and Demography. In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 53-86. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Dean, J. s., R. C. Euler, G. J. Gumerman, F. Plog, R. H. Hevley, and T. N. V. Karlstrom 1985 Human Behavior, Demography, and Paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateau. American Antiquity 50 :537-554. Dean, J. S., and G. S. Funkhouser 1995 Dendroclimatic Reconstructions for the Southern Colorado Plateau. In Climate Change in the Four Corners and Adjacent Regions: Implications for Environmental Restoration and Land- Use Planning, edited by W. J. Waugh, pp. 85-104. U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction Projects Office, Grand Junction, Colorado. Dean, J. S., A. J. Lindsay Jr., and W. J. Robinson 1978 Prehistoric Settlement in Long House Valley, Northeastern Arizona. In Investigations ofthe Southwestern Anthropological Research Group, edited by R. C. Euler and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 25-44. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Dean, J. S., and W. J. Robinson 1977 1978

Dendroclimatic Variability in the American Southwest, A.D. 680 to 1970. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service PB-266 340. Springfield, Virginia. Expanded Tree-Ring Chronologies for the Southwestern United States. Chronology Series III. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Dean, J. S., and R. L. Warren 1983 Dendrochronology. In The Architecture and Dendrochronology ofChetro Ketl, edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 105-240. Reports of the Chaco Center, no. 6. National Park Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Diehl,M.W. 1992 Architecture as a Material Correlate of Mobility Strategies: Some Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. Behavior Science Research 26:1-35. Dobres, M.-A., and C. R. Hoffman 1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal ofArchaeological Method and The-

ory 1:211-258. Dobres, M.-A., and J. E. Robb (editors) 2000 Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London. Dongoske, K. E., M. Yeatts, R. Anyon, and T. J. Ferguson 1997 Archaeological Cultures and Cultural Affiliation: Hopi and Zuni Perspectives in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 62:600-608. Douglass, A. E. 1929 The Secret of the Southwest Solved by Talkative Tree Rings. National Geographic 56:737-770.

REFERENCES

1935

293

Dating Pueblo Bonito and Other Ruins ofthe Southwest. National Geographic Society Contributed Technical Papers, Pueblo Bonito Series, no. 1. Washington, D.C.

Doyel,D.E. 1974

Excavations in the Escalante Ruin Group, Southern Arizona. Archaeological Series, no. 37. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Drennan, R. D. 1984 Long-Distance Transport Costs in Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica. American Anthropologist 86:105-112. Driver, J. C. 1990 Meat in Due Season: The Timing of Communal Hunts. In Hunters ofthe Recent Past, edited by B. O. K. Reeves and L. B. Davis, pp. 11-33. Unwin Hyman, London. 1992 Identification, Classification, and Zooarchaeology. Circaea 9:35-47. 1996 Social Complexity and Hunting Systems in Southwestern Colorado. In Debating Complexity: Proceedings ofthe Twenty-Sixth Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by D. A. Meyer, P. C. Dawson, and D. T. Hanna, pp. 364-374. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 1997 Zooarchaeology and Social Organization in Non-State Societies. Anthropozoologica 25-26:79-84. 2000 Faunal Remains. In The Archaeology ofCastle Rock Pueblo: A Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Available: . Date of use: February 15,2002. 2001 Taphonomy in Pinyon-Juniper Woodland. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. 2002 Faunal Remains. In Woods Canyon Pueblo [HTML Title], edited by M. J. Churchill. Available: . Under construction. Driver, J. C., M. J. Brand, L. Lester, and N. D. Munro 1999 Faunal Studies. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing [HTML Title], edited by M. D. Varien, Chapter 18. Available: . Date of use: August 6, 2001. Duff,A. I. 1998 The Process of Migration in the Late Prehistoric Southwest. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, edited by K. A. Spielmann, pp. 31-52. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 51. Arizona State University, Tempe. 2000 Scale, Interaction, and Regional Analysis in Late Pueblo Prehistory. In The Archaeology ofRegional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange across the American Southwest and Beyond, edited by M. Hegmon, pp. 71-98. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Duff, A. I., and R. H. Wilshusen 2000 Prehistoric Population Dynamics in the Northern San Juan Region, A.D. 900-1300. Kiva 66:167-190. Echo-Hawk, R. 2000 Ancient History in the New World: Integrating Oral Traditions and the Archaeological Record in Deep Time. American Antiquity 65:267-290. Eddy,EW. 1966

Prehistory ofthe Navajo Reservoir District. Papers in Anthropology, no. 15, parts 1 and 2. Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

294

1977

REFERENCES

Archaeological Investigations at Chimney Rock Mesa: 1970-1972. Memoirs, no. 1. Colorado Archaeological Society, Boulder.

Eder, J. F. 1984 The Impact of Subsistence Change on Mobility and Settlement Pattern in a Tropical Forest Foraging Economy: Some Implications for Archaeology. American Anthropologist 86:837-853. Ekren, E. B., and F. N. Houser 1965

Geology and Petrology ofthe Ute Mountains Area, Colorado. Professional Paper, no. 481. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Ellis, F. H. 1951 Patterns ofAggression and the War Cult in Southwestern Pueblos. Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology 7:177-2 01. Elson, M. D., M. T. Stark, and D. A. Gregory 1995

The Roosevelt Community Development Study: New Perspectives on Tonto Basin Prehistory. Anthropological Papers, no. 15. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.

Ember,C.R. 1993 Violence in the Ethnographic Record: Cross-Cultural Research on War and Crime. Paper presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Emslie, S. D. 1978 Vertebrate Fauna from Site 5MTUMR2837, Mancos Canyon, Colorado. In Excavations at Site SMTUMR2837, Mancos Canyon, Ute Mountain Ute Homelands, Colorado. Report on file, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 1981 Bird Remains from Big Westwater Ruin. In Big Westwater Ruin, by L. W. Lindsay, pp. 162-171. Cultural Resources Series, no. 9. Bureau of Land Management, Utah. 1982 Faunal Remains. In Basketmaker Settlement and Subsistence along the San Juan River, Utah, by R. B. Neily, pp. 422-443. Report on file, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City. 1986a Faunal Remains from the Tres Bobos Hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Early Anasazi Sites in the Sagehen Flats, edited by A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 187-189. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1986b Faunal Report for Prairie Dog Hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Early Anasazi Sites in the Sagehen Flats, edited by A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 481-493. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1986c Faunal Remains from Dos Casas Hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Early Anasazi Sites in the Sagehen Flats, edited by A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 631-635. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. English, N. B., J. L. Betancourt, J. S. Dean, and J. Quade 2001 Strontium Isotopes Reveal Distance Sources ofArchitectural Timber in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Proceedings ofthe National Academy ofSciences 98(21):11,891-11,896. Erdman, J. A., C. L. Douglas, and J. W. Marr 1969

Environment ofMesa Verde, Colorado. Archeological Research Series, no. 7-B. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

REFERENCES

295

Ermigiotti, P. 1997 The Kiln Conference at Crow Canyon: A Summary Report 1991-1996. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Errickson, M. E. 1995

Archaeological Excavations on Reach II ofthe Towaoc Canal. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report, no. 20. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado.

Euler, R. C., G. J. Gumerman, T. N. V. Karlstrom, J. S. Dean, and R. H. Hevly 1979 The Colorado Plateaus: Cultural Dynamics and Paleoenvironment. Science 2°5:1,089-1,101. Ezzo, J. A., C. M. Johnson, and T. D. Price 1997 Analytical Perspectives on Prehistoric Migration: A Case Study from East-Central Arizona. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:447-466. Fairchild-Parks, J. A., and J. S. Dean 1993 Analysis of Tree-Ring Dates from Balcony House-Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. Manuscript on file, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, Tucson, Arizona. Farmer, M. F. 1957 A Suggested Typology of Defensive Systems of the Southwest. Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology 13: 2 49-2 66. Feinman, G. M. 1995 The Emergence of Inequality: A Focus on Strategies and Processes. In Foundations ofSocial Inequality, edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 255-279. Plenum Press, New York. 2000 Dual-Processual Theory and Social Formations in the Southwest. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by B. J. Mills, pp. 207-224. University ofArizona Press, Tucson. Feinman, G. M., K. G. Lightfoot, and S. Upham 2000 Political Hierarchies and Organizational Strategies in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 65:449-47°·

Feinman, G., and J. Neitzel 1984 Too Many Types: An Overview of Sedentary Prestate Societies in the Americas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 39-102. Academic Press, New York. Feld, S., and K. H. Basso (editors) Senses ofPlace. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

1996

Ferguson, R. B. 1984 Introduction: Studying War. In Warfare, Culture, and Environment, edited by R. B. Ferguson, pp. 1-81. Academic Press, Orlando. 1997 Violence and War in Prehistory. In Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past, edited by D. L. Martin and D. W. Frayer, pp. 321-355. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ferguson, T. J. 1996

Historic Zuni Architecture and Society: An Archaeological Application ofSpace Syntax. Anthropological Papers, no. 60. University ofArizona, Tucson.

REFERENCES

Fetterman, J., and L. Honeycutt 1982 1987

Testing and Excavation Report, MAPCO's Rocky Mountain Liquid Hydrocarbons Pipeline, Southwest Colorado. Report on file, Anasazi Heritage Center, Dolores, Colorado. The Mockingbird Mesa Survey, Southwestern Colorado. Cultural Resource Series, no. 22. Bureau of Land Management, Denver.

Fewkes, J. W. Archaeological Expedition to Arizona in 1895. In Seventeenth Annual Report ofthe Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, 1895-96, Part 2, pp. 519-744. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1916 Excavation and Repair ofSun Temple, Mesa Verde National Park. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1919 Prehistoric Villages, Castles, and Towers ofSouthwestern Colorado. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, no. 70, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1921 Field- Work on the Mesa Verde National Park. Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 72, no. 6. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1927 Katcina Altars in Hopi Worship. Annual Report ofthe Board ofRegents ofthe Smithsonian Institution, 1926. Washington, D.C. 1898

Fish, P. R., S. K. Fish, G. J. Gumerman, and J. J. Reid Toward an Explanation for Southwestern (~bandonments.»In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 135-163. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

1994

Fish, S. K. Farming, Foraging, and Gender. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by P. L. Crown, pp. 169-196. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

2000

Fish, S. K., P. R. Fish, and J. H. Madsen (editors) 1992

The Marana Community in the Hohokam World. Anthropological Papers, no. 56. University ofArizona, Tucson.

Flannery, K. V. (editor) 1976

The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York.

Flannery, K. v., and J. Marcus Evolution of the Public Building in Formative Oaxaca. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of/ames Bennett Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 205-221. Academic Press, New York.

1976

Force, E. R., and W. K. Howell 1997

Holocene Depositional History and Anasazi Occupation in McElmo Canyon, Southwestern Colorado. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series, no. 188. University ofArizona, Tucson.

Ford, R. 1. An Ecological Perspective on the Eastern Pueblos. In New Perspectives on the Pueblos, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 1-18. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1972

Ford, R. 1., A. H. Schroeder, and S. L. Peckham Three Perspectives on Puebloan Prehistory. In New Perspectives on the Pueblos, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 19-39. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1972

REFERENCES

297

Fowler, A. P., and J. R. Stein The Anasazi Great House in Space, Time, and Paradigm. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 101-122. Anthropological Papers, no. 5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque.

1992

France, D. L. 1988

A Human Burial from Dolores County, Colorado. Cultural Resource Series, no. 24. Bureau of Land Management, Denver.

Fratt, L. 1997

Grinding in the Anasazi Household: A Study ofAggregation and Technology in the Northern San Juan Region ofthe American Southwest. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Fritts, H. C., D. G. Smith, and M. A. Stokes The Biological Model for Paleoclimatic Interpretation of Mesa Verde Tree-Ring Series. In Contributions ofthe Wetherill Mesa Archeological Project, assembled by D. Osborne, pp. 101-121. Memoirs, no. 19. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City, Utah.

1965

Fuller, S. L. 1984

Late Anasazi Pottery Kilns in the Yellowjacket District, Southwestern Colorado. CASA Papers, no. 4. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado.

Giddens,A. 1984

The Constitution ofSociety: Outline ofthe Theory ofStructuration. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Gilman, P. A. Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity

1987

52:538-564.

Gilpin, D., and D. E. Purcell 2000 Peach Springs Revisited: Surface Recording and Excavation on the South Chaco Slope, New Mexico. In Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 28-38. Anthropological Papers, no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Gish,J.W. Pollen Results. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing [HTML Title], edited by M. D. Varien, Chapter 17. Available: . Date of use: August 6, 2001.

1999

Glascock, M. D. Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics. In Chemical Characterization ofCeramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, pp. 11-26. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

1992

Gleichman, C. L., and P. J. Gleichman The Lower Sand Canyon Survey. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 25-31. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

1992

REFERENCES

Glowacki, D. M. 1995 Patterns of Ceramic Production and Vessel Movement in the Mesa Verde Region. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia. 2001 Yucca House (5MT5006) Mapping Project Report. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Glowacki, D. M., H. Neff, and M. D. Glascock 1995 Characterization of Mesa Verde Black-on-White Ceramics from Southwestern Colorado using NAA. Journal ofRadioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 196:215-222. 1998 An Initial Assessment of the Production and Movement of Thirteenth Century Ceramic Vessels in the Mesa Verde Region. Kiva 63:217-24°. Gluckman, M. 1943

Essays on Lozi Land and Royal Property. Rhodes-Livingstone Papers, no. 10. London.

Gould, R. R. 1982 The Mustoe Site: The Application of Neutron Activation Analysis in the Interpretation of a MultiComponent Archaeological Site. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Texas, Austin. Graham,M. 1994

Mobile Farmers. An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Settlement Organization among the Raramuri of Northwestern Mexico. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ethnoarchaeological Series, no. 3.

Graves, M. W., W. A. Longacre, and S. J. Holbrook 1982 Aggregation and Abandonment at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Journal ofField Archaeology 9:193-206. Gregg, Susan (editor) 1991

Between Bands and States. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper, no. 9. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Gregory, D. A. 1991 Form and Variation in Hohokam Settlement Patterns. In Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown and W. J. Judge, pp. 159-193. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Gregory, D. A., and F. L. Nials 1985 Observations Concerning the Distribution of Classic Period Hohokam Platform Mounds. In Proceedings ofthe Hohokam Symposium, I, edited by A. E. Dittert and D. E. Dove, pp. 373-388. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix. Griffitts, M. O. 1990

Guide to the Geology ofMesa Verde National Park. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado.

Grissino-Mayer, H. D. 1996 A 2,129-Year Reconstruction of Precipitation for Northwestern New Mexico. In Tree Rings, Environment, and Humanity: Proceedings ofthe International Conference, Tucson, Arizona, 17-21 May 1994, edited by J. S. Dean, D. M. Meko, and T. W. Swetnam, pp. 191-204. Radiocarbon, Tucson, Arizona.

REFERENCES

299

Guthe,A.K. A Preliminary Report on Excavations in Southwestern Colorado. American Antiquity 15:144-154.

1949

Haas,J. 1990

Warfare and the Evolution of Tribal Polities in the Prehistoric Southwest. In The Anthropology ofWar, edited by J. Haas, pp. 171-189. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Haas, J., and W. Creamer 1993

1996 1997

Stress and Warfare among the Kayenta Anasazi ofthe Thirteenth Century A.D. Fieldiana: Anthropology, New Series, no. 21. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. The Role ofWarfare in the Pueblo III Period. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 205-213. University ofArizona Press, Tucson. Warfare among the Pueblos: Myth, History, and Ethnology. Ethnohistory 44(2):235-261.

Haas, J., E. J. Ladd, J. E. Levy, R. H. McGuire, and N. Yoffee Historical Processes in the Prehistoric Southwest. In Understanding Complexity in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by G. Gumerman and M. Gell-Mann, pp. 203-232. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, vol. 16. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

1994

Haase,W.R. Domestic Water Conservation among the Northern San Juan Anasazi. Southwestern Lore 51(2):15-27.

1985

Hack,J. T. 1942

1945

The Changing Physical Environment ofthe Hopi Indians ofArizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 35, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Recent Geology of the Tsegi Canyon. In Archaeological Studies in Northeast Arizona, by R. L. Beals, G. W. Brainerd, and W. Smith, pp. 151-158. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 44, no. 1. University of California, Berkeley.

Hall,S.A. Late Quaternary Sedimentation and Paleoecologic History of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Geological

1977

Society ofAmerica Bulletin 88:1,593-1,618. 1983

Holocene Stratigraphy and Paleoecology of Chaco Canyon. In Chaco Canyon Country: A Field Guide to

the Geomorphology, Quaternary Geology, Paleoecology, and Environmental Geology ofNorthwestern New Mexico, edited by S. G. Wells, D. W. Love, and T. W. Gardner, pp. 219-226. American Geomorphological Field Group 1983 Field Trip Guidebook. Hallasi, J. Archaeological Excavation at the Escalante Site, Dolores, Colorado, 1975 and 1976. In The Archeology and Stabilization ofthe Dominguez and Escalante Ruins, authored by A. D. Reed, J. A. Hallasi, A. S. White, and D. A. Breternitz, Part II, PP.197-425. Cultural Resources Series, no. 7. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, Denver.

1979

Hanson,A. The Making of the Maori: Culture Invention and Its Logic. American Anthropologist 91:890-902.

1989

Harbottle, G. Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Radiochemistry, Vol. 3, edited by G. W. A. Newton, pp. 33-72. The Chemical Society, London.

1976

300

REFERENCES

Hard, R. J., and W. L. Merrill 1992 Mobile Agriculturalists and the Emergence of Sedentism: Perspectives from Northern Mexico. American Anthropologist 94:601-620. Harrington, J. P. 1916 Ethnogeography of the Tewa Indians. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, 29th Annual Report, pp. 29-618. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Harry,K.G. 1997 Ceramic Production, Distribution, and Consumption in Two Classic Period Hohokam Communities. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Harry, K. G., and J. M. Bayman 2000 Leadership Strategies among the Classic Period Hohokam: A Case Study. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by B. J. Mills, pp. 136-153. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Harvey,D. Justice, Nature, and the Geography ofDifference. Blackwell, Oxford.

1996

Haury,E.W. 1958 Evidence at Point of Pines for a Prehistoric Migration from Northern Arizona. In Migrations in New World Culture History, edited by R. H. Thompson, pp. 1-7. Social Science Bulletin, no. 27. University of Arizona, Tucson. Hayes,A.C. The Archeological Survey ofWetherill Mesa, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. Archeological Research Series, nO.7-A, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 1984 Two Raven House, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. Manuscript on file, Mesa Verde National Research Center, Colorado. 1964

Hayes, A. C., and J. A. Lancaster Badger House Community, Mesa Verde National Park. Publications in Archeology, no. 7E. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

1975

Hays-Gilpin, K. 2000 Gender Ideology and Ritual Activities. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by P. L. Crown, pp. 91-135. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Hegmon,M. 1991 Six Easy Steps to Dating Pueblo III Ceramic Assemblages: Working Draft. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review ofAnthropology 21:517-536. 1993 Analyses of Production and Stylistic Information. In The Duckfoot Site, Volume 1: Descriptive Archeology, edited by R. R. Lightfoot and M. C. Etzkorn, pp. 153-154. Occasional Papers, no. 3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1995a Pueblo I Ceramic Production in Southwest Colorado: Analyses of Igneous Rock Temper. Kiva 60:371-39°.

REFERENCES

1995b

3°1

The Social Dynamics ofPottery Style in the Early Puebloan Southwest. Occasional Papers, no. 5. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Hegmon, M. (editor) 2000

The Archaeology ofRegional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange across the American Southwest and Beyond. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Hegmon, M., and J. A. Brady 2001 Mimbres Communities during the Classic Period. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Hevly,R.H. 1988 Prehistoric Vegetation and Paleoclimates on the Colorado Plateaus. In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 92-118. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Hewett, E. L. 1908

Les Communautes Anciennes dans Ie DesertAmericain. Librairie Kundig, Geneva.

Hibben, F. C. 1948 The Gallina Architectural Forms. American Antiquity 14:32-36. Hill,D.V. 1985 Pottery Making at the Ewing Site (5MT927). Southwestern Lore 51(1):19-31. 1994 Technological Analysis: Making and Using Ceramics on Black Mesa. In Function and Technology of Anasazi Ceramics from Black Mesa, Arizona, edited by M. F. Smith, pp. 23-53. Occasional Paper, no. 15. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Hill, K. C. (editor) 1998

Hopi Dictionary. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.

Hill,W.W. 1938 The Agricultural and Hunting Methods of the Navajo Indians. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 18. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Hobsbawm, E. 1983 Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In The Invention ofTradition, edited by E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, pp. 1-14. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Hodder, I. 1991

Reading the Past. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Holmes, W. H. 1878 Report on the Ancient Ruins of Southwestern Colorado, Examined during the Summers of 1875 and 1876. In Tenth Annual Report ofthe U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey ofthe Territories for 1876, pp. 383-408. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1910 Report of the Chief. In Twenty-Seventh Annual Report ofthe Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology for the Years 1905-1906, pp. 7-14. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Hovezak, M. J. 1992 Construction Timber Economics at Sand Canyon Pueblo. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

REFERENCES

302

Howard, J. B. Paleohydraulics: Modeling the Operation of Prehistoric Hohokam Irrigation Systems. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.

1990

Hubbard, R. N. L. B. Development of Agriculture in Europe and the Near East: Evidence from Quantitative Studies. Eco-

1980

nomic Botany 34:51-67. Huber,E.K. Thirteenth Century Pueblo Aggregation and Organizational Change in Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

1993

Huber, E. K., and W. D. Lipe Excavations at the Green Lizard Site. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 69-77. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

1992

Huckleberry, G. A., and B. R. Billman Floodwater Farming, Discontinuous Ephemeral Streams, and Puebloan Abandonment in Southwestern Colorado. American Antiquity 63:595-616.

1998

Hurst,W. 2000 Chaco Outlier or Backwoods Pretender? A Provincial Great House at Edge of the Cedars Ruin, Utah. In Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 63-78. Anthropological Papers, no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Hurst, W. B., and C. G. Turner II Rediscovering the "Great Discovery": Wetherill's First Cave 7 and Its Record of Basketmaker Violence. In Anasazi Basketmaker, Papers from the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium, edited by V. M.

1993

Atkins, pp. 142-191. Cultural Resource Series, no. 24. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City,

Utah. Irwin-Williams, C. Investigations at Salmon Ruin: Methodology and Overview. In Investigations at the Salmon Site: The Structure ofChacoan Society in the Northern Southwest, vol. 1, part 2, edited by C. Irwin-Williams and P. H. Shelley, pp. 105-167. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

1980

Isbell, W. H. 2000 What We Should Be Studying: The «Imagined Community" and the «Natural Community." In The Archaeology ofCommunities: A New World Perspective, edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 243-266. Routledge, London. Jalbert, J. P., and C. Cameron Chacoan and Local Influences in Three Great House Communities in the Northern San Juan Region. In Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 79-90. Anthropological Papers, no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2000

James,H.C. 1974

Pages from Hopi History. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.

REFERENCES

303

Jewett, R. A., and K. G. Lightfoot 1986 The Intra-Site Spatial Structure of Early Mogollon Villages: A Comparison of Seasonal and Year-Round Settlements. In Mogollon Variability, edited by C. Benson and S. Upham, pp. 45-77. The University Museum Occasional Papers, no. 15. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. Jochim, M. A. 1981

Strategies for Survival. Academic Press, New York.

Johnson, A. W., and T. Earle 1987

The Evolution ofHuman Societies: From Foraging Groups to Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Johnson, G. A. 1977 Aspects of Regional Analysis in Archaeology. Annual Review ofAnthropology 6:479-508. 1980 Rank-Size Convexity and System Integration: A View from Archaeology. Economic Geography 56(3):234-247. 1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited by C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and B. A. Segraves, pp. 389-421. Academic Press, New York. 1987 Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory: Far Outside-Looking In. In Dynamics ofSouthwest Prehistory, edited by L. S. Cordell and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 371-389. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Johnson,M. 1989 Conceptions ofAgency in Archaeological Interpretation. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 8:189-211. Jorgensen, J. G. 1980

Western Indians: Comparative Environments, Languages, and Cultures of172 Western American Indian Tribes. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Judd,N.M. 1964 The Architecture ofPueblo Bonito. Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 147, no. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Judge, W.J. 1989 Chaco Canyon-San Juan Basin. In Dynamics ofSouthwest Prehistory, edited by L. S. Cordell and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 209-261. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Kane,A.E. 1986 Reservoir Ruin (5MT4450) map. On file at the Colorado Historical Society, Denver. Kantner, J., and N. Mahoney (editors) 2000

Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape. Anthropological Papers, no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Karlstrom, E. T., and T. N. V. Karlstrom 1986 Late Quaternary Alluvial Stratigraphy and Soils of the Black Mesa-Little Colorado River Areas, Northern Arizona. In Geology ofCentral and Northern Arizona, edited by J. D. Nations, C. M. Conway, and G. A. Swann, pp. 71-92. Geological Society ofAmerica, Flagstaff, Arizona.

REFERENCES

3°4

Karlstrom, T. N. V. 1988 Alluvial Chronology and Hydrologic Change of Black Mesa and Nearby Regions. In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 45-91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Katz, S. H., M. L. Hediger, and L. A. Valleroy 1974 Traditional Maize Processing Techniques in the New World. Science 184:765-773. Katzenberg, M. A. 1999 Human Skeletal Remains. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing, edited by M. D. Varien, Chapter 19. CD-ROM, Verso 1.0. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado (distributed by the University of Arizona Press, Tucson). Kauffman, S. 1995

At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws ofSelf-Organization and Complexity. Oxford University Press, New York.

Keeley, L. H. 1996

2001

War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press, New York. Giving War a Chance. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 331-342. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Kelley, J. E., V. Dirst, J. A. Beezley, and J. Bowen 1974

Faunal Analysis, Salmon Ruin, San Juan Valley, New Mexico, LA8846. Report on file, Salmon Ruins Library, Bloomfield, New Mexico.

Kelley, J. P. 1996

Woods Canyon Pueblo: A Late Pueblo III Period Canyon-Oriented Site in Southwest Colorado. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department ofAnthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Kelley, J. P., W. D. Lipe, M. D. Varien, and C. Huegle 1994 Thirteenth Century Canyon Rim Architectural Complexes in the Mesa Verde Region. Poster paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Anaheim, California. Kelly, R. L. 1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal ofAnthropological Research 39:277-306. Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review ofAnthropology 1992 21:43-66. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kent, S. 1989

1991

1992

Site SMT1786, a Final Report ofExcavations and Analyses. Report on file, Anasazi Heritage Center, Dolores, Colorado. The Relationship between Mobility Strategies and Site Structure. In The Interpretation ofSpatial Patterning within Stone Age Archaeological Sites, edited by E. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 33-59. Plenum Press, New York. Studying Variability in the Archaeological Record: An Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns. American Antiquity 57:635-660.

REFERENCES

3°5

Kent, S., and H. Vierich The Myth of Ecological Determinism-Anticipated Mobility and Site Spatial Organization. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications ofSedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 96-134. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

1989

KenzIe, S. C. Enclosing Walls: A Study ofArchitectural Function in the American Southwest. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 1997 Enclosing Walls in the Northern San Juan: Sociophysical Boundaries and Defensive Fortifications in the American Southwest. Journal ofField Archaeology 24:195-210. 1993

Kertzer, D. I. 1988

Ritual, Politics, and Power. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Kidder, A. V. 1924

An Introduction to the Study ofSouthwestern Archaeology with a Preliminary Account ofthe Excavations at Pecos. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition, no. 1. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Kintigh, K. W. 1985

1994

Settlement, Subsistence, and Society in Late Zuni Prehistory. Anthropological Papers, no. 44. University of Arizona, Tucson. Chaco, Communal Architecture, and Cibolan Aggregation. In The Ancient Southwestern Community, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard, pp. 131-140. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Kintigh, K. W., T. L. Howell, and A. I. Duff Post-Chacoan Social Integration at the Hinkson Site. Kiva 61:257-274.

1996

Kleidon, J. H. Castle Rock Pueblo. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing, edited by M. D. Varien, Chapter 14. CD-ROM, Verso 1.0. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado (distributed by the University of Arizona Press, Tucson).

1999

Knapp,A.B. Archaeology without Gravity: Postmodernism and the Past. Journal ofArchaeological Method and The-

1996

ory 3:127-158. Kohler, T. A. Introduction. In The Bandelier Archaeological Excavation Project: Research Design and Summer 1988 Sampling, edited by T.A. Kohler, pp. 1-12. Reports of Investigations, no. 61. Department ofAnthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. 1992 Field Houses, Villages, and the Tragedy of the Commons in the Early Northern Anasazi Southwest. 1989

American Antiquity 57:617-635. 1993

News from the Northern American Southwest: Prehistory on the Edge of Chaos. Journal ofArchaeologi-

cal Research 1:267-321. Kohler, T. A., and M. H. Matthews Long-Term Anasazi Land Use and Forest Reduction: A Case Study from Southwest Colorado. American

1988

Antiquity 53:537-564.

REFERENCES

306

Kohler, T. A, and C. R. Van West 1996 The Calculus of Self-Interest in the Development of Cooperation: Sociopolitical Development of Risk among the Northern Anasazi. In Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by J. Tainter and B. Tainter, pp. 169-196. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, vol. 24. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. Kolb, M. J., and J. E. Snead 1997 It's a Small World After All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in Archaeology. Ameri-

can Antiquity 62:609-628. Kosse,K. 1990 Group Size and Society Complexity: Thresholds in the Long-Term Memory. Journal ofAnthropological

Archaeology 9:275-303. 1996

Middle Range Societies from a Scalar Perspective. In Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Overarching Patterns, edited by P. R. Fish and J. J. Reid, pp. 87-96. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 48. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Kuckelman, K. A. 2000a Architecture. In The Archaeology ofCastle Rock Pueblo: A Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Available: . Date of use: September I, 200l. 2000b The Final Days of Castle Rock Pueblo. In The Archaeology ofCastle Rock Pueblo: A Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Available: . Date of use: September 1, 200l. 2000C Rock Art. In The Archaeology ofCastle Rock Pueblo: A Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Available: . Date of use: September 1, 2001. 2000d Oral History. In The Archaeology ofCastle Rock Pueblo: A Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Available: . Date of use: September 1, 2001. 2000e Population Estimates. In The Archaeology ofCastle Rock Pueblo: A Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Available: . Date of use: September I, 200l. 2001 Skull Trauma and Warfare in the Ancient Southwest. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Kuckelman, K. A. (editor) 2000

The Archaeology ofCastle Rock Pueblo: A Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado [HTML Title]. Available: . Date of use: February 19, 2002.

Kuckelman, K. A., R. R. Lightfoot, and D. L. Martin 2000 Changing Patterns ofViolence in the Northern San Juan Region. Kiva 66:147-165. 2002 The Bioarchaeology and Taphonomy ofViolence at Castle Rock and Sand Canyon Pueblos, Southwestern Colorado. American Antiquity, in press. Kuckelman, K. A., and S. G. Ortman 2002 The Chronology ofYellow Jacket Pueblo. In The Archaeology ofYellow Jacket Pueblo (Site SMTS): Excavations at a Large Community Center in Southwestern Colorado [HTML Title]. Available: . Under construction.

REFERENCES

Kurath, G. P. 1970

Music and Dance ofthe Tewa Pueblos. Research Records, no. 8. Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson 1999

Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, New York.

Lambert, P. M. 1997 Patterns ofViolence in Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Societies of Coastal Southern California. In Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past, edited by D. L. Martin and D. W. Frayer, pp. 77-109. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1999 Human Skeletal Remains. In The Puebloan Occupation ofthe Ute Mountain Piedmont, Volume 5: Environmental and Bioarchaeological Studies, edited by B. R. Billman, pp. 111-161. Publications in Archeology, no. 22. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Lancaster, J. A., and J. M Pinkley 1954 Excavation at Site 16 of Three Pueblo II Mesa-Top Ruins. In Archaeological Excavations in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, 1950, authored by J. A. Lancaster, J. M. Pinkley, P. F. van Cleve, and D. Watson, pp. 23-86. Archeological Research Series, no. 2. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. LeBlanc, S. A. 1998 Settlement Consequences ofWarfare during the Late Pueblo III and Pueblo IV Periods. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, edited by K. A. Spielmann, pp. 115-135. Anthropological Papers, no. 51. Arizona State University, Tempe. 1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2001 Warfare and Aggregation in the El Morro Valley, New Mexico. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 19-49. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. LeBlanc, S. A., and G. E. Rice 2001 Southwestern Warfare: The Value of Case Studies. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 1-18. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Lee,R.B. 1979

The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Lekson, S. H.

Great Pueblo Architecture ofChaco Canyon, New Mexico. Reprinted. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Originally published 1984, National Park Service, Albuquerque. 1988a The Idea of the Kiva in Anasazi Archaeology. Kiva 53:213-234. 1988b Sociopolitical Complexity at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1990 Sedentism and Aggregation in Anasazi Archaeology. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 333-340. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 1993 Ruins of the Four Corners, Villages of the Rio Grande. In Ancient Land, Ancestral Places: Paul Logsdon in the Pueblo Southwest, authored by S. H. Lekson, R. Swentzell, and C. M Cameron, pp. 1-16. Museum of New Mexico Press, Sante Fe. 1986

308

REFERENCES

Scale and Process in the Southwest. In Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Overarching Patterns, edited by P. R. Fish and J. J. Reid, pp. 87-96. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 48. Arizona State University, Tempe. The Chaco Meridian. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. Great Towns in the Southwest. In Great Towns and Regional Polities in the Prehistoric American Southwest and Southeast, edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 3-21. Amerind Foundation Series, no. 3. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Lekson, S. H., and C. M. Cameron 1995 The Abandonment of Chaco Canyon, the Mesa Verde Migrations, and the Reorganization of the Pueblo World. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 14:184-202. Lekson, S. H., T. C. Windes, J. R. Stein, and W. J. Judge 1988 The Chaco Canyon Community. ScientificAmerican 256(7):100-109. Leonard, R. D., and G. T. Jones 1987 Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary Model for Archaeology. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 6:199-219. Leonhardy, F. C., and V. L. Clay 1985 Soils. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Studies in Environmental Archaeology, compiled by K. L. Petersen, V. L. Clay, M. H. Matthews, and S. W. Neusius, pp. 139-152. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Lightfoot, K. 1983 Resource Uncertainty and Buffering Strategies in an Arid, Marginal Environment. In Ecological Models in Economic Prehistory, edited by G. Bronitsky, pp. 189-218. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 29. Arizona State University, Tempe. 1984 Prehistoric Political Dynamics: A Case Study from the American Southwest. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb. Lightfoot, K. G., and G. M. Feinman 1982 Social Differentiation and Leadership Development in Early Pithouse Villages in the Mogollon Region of the American Southwest. American Antiquity 47:64-86. Lightfoot, K. G., and R. Jewett 1984 The Occupation Duration of Duncan. In The Duncan Project: A Study ofthe Occupation Duration and Settlement Pattern ofan Early Mogollon Pithouse Village, edited by K. G. Lightfoot, pp. 47-82. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Lightfoot, K. G., and S. Upham 1989a Complex Societies in the Prehistoric American Southwest: A Consideration of the Controversy. In The Sociopolitical Structure ofPrehistoric Southwestern Societies, edited by S. Upham, K. G. Lightfoot, and R. A. Jewett, pp. 3-30. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 1989b The Sociopolitical Structure of Prehistoric Southwest Societies: Concluding Thoughts. In The Sociopolitical Structure ofPrehistoric Southwestern Societies, edited by S. Upham, K. G. Lightfoot, and R. A. Jewett, pp. 583-593. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Lightfoot, R. R. 1988 Roofing an Early Anasazi Great Kiva: Analysis of an Architectural ModeL Kiva 53:253-272.

REFERENCES

1992 1993 1994

309

Architecture and Tree-Ring Dating at the Duckfoot Site in Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 57:213-236. Synthesis. In The Duckfoot Site, Volume 1: Descriptive Archaeology, edited by R. R. Lightfoot and M. C. Etzkorn, pp. 297-302. Occasional Papers, no. 3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. The Duckfoot Site, Volume 2: Archaeology ofthe House and Household. Occasional Papers, no. 4. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lightfoot, R. R., and M. C. Etzkorn (editors) 1993

The Duckfoot Site, Volume 1: Descriptive Archaeology. Occasional Papers, no. 3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lightfoot, R. R., and K. A. Kuckelman 1994 Warfare and the Pueblo Abandonment of the Mesa Verde Region. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Anaheim, California. 1995 Ancestral Pueblo Violence in the Northern Southwest. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2001 A Case ofWarfare in the Mesa Verde Region. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 51-64. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Linares, O. 1976 Garden Hunting in the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4:331-349. Lindsay, A. J., Jr. 1987 Anasazi Population Movements to Southeastern Arizona. American Archeology 6(3):190-198. Linton,R. 1936

1944

The Study ofMan. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. Nomad Raids and Fortified Pueblos. American Antiquity 10:28-32.

Lipe,W.D. 1970 Anasazi Communities in the Red Rock Plateau, Southeastern Utah. In Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies, edited by W. A. Longacre, pp. 84-139. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1974 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. Kiva 39:213-245. 1984 Conservation for What? In American Society for Conservation Archaeology, 1984, edited by W. J. MayerOakes and A. V. Portnoy, pp. 1-11. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Social Scale of Mesa Verde Anasazi Kivas. In The Architecture ofSocial Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, 1989 edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 53-71. Occasional Papers, no. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1992a Introduction. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 1-10. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1992b Summary and Concluding Comments. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 121-133. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1995 The Depopulation of the Northern San Juan: Conditions in the Turbulent 1200S. Journal ofAnthropo-

logical Archaeology 14:143-169. 1996 1997 1999

In Defense of Digging: Archeological Preservation as a Means, Not an End. CRM 19(7):23-27. Public Benefits of Archaeological Research. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. History of Archaeology. In Colorado Prehistory: A Contextfor the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by W. D. Lipe, M. D. Varien, and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 51-94. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

310

REFERENCES

Lipe, W. D. (editor) 1992

The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lipe, W. D., and B. A. Bradley 1986 Prehistoric Pueblo Organization, Goodman Point Locality, Southwestern Colorado. Proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Lipe, W. D., and M. Hegmon 1989 Historical and Analytical Perspectives on Architecture and Social Integration in the Prehistoric Pueblos. In The Architecture ofSocial Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 15-34. Occasional Papers, no. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Lipe, W. D., and F. C. Huntington 1969 Centrographic Indices: Some Methods for Analyzing Complex Area Distributions. Kiva 35:29-54. Lipe, W. D., and A. E. Kane 1986 Evaluations of the Models with Dolores Area Data. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Final Synthetic Report, compiled by D. A. Breternitz, C. K. Robinson, and G. T. Gross, pp. 703-707. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Lipe, W. D., and S. H. Lekson 2001 Mesa Verde Pueblo Migration and Cultural Transformations, A.D. 1250-1350. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Lipe, W. D., and S. G. Ortman 2000 Spatial Patterning in Northern San Juan Villages, A.D. 1050-1300. Kiva 66:91-122. Lipe, W. D., and M. D. Varien 1999a Pueblo II (A.D. 900-1150). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by W. D. Lipe, M. D. Varien, and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 242-289. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. 1999b Pueblo III (A.D. 1150-13°°). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by W. D. Lipe, M. D. Varien, and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 290-352. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. Lipe, W. D., M. D. Varien, and R. H. Wilshusen (editors) 1999

Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

Lister, F. H. 1964

Contributions to Mesa Verde Archaeology, I: Site 499, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. University of Colorado Studies Series in Anthropology, no. 9. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Lomatuway'ma, M., L. Lomatuway'ma, and S. Namingha Jr. Hopi Ruin Legends = Kiqotutuwutsi, edited by E. Malotki. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

1993

REFERENCES

311

Longacre, W. A. (editor) 1970

Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Love,D.W. Quaternary Geology of Chaco Canyon, Northwestern New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1980

Lovejoy, C. O. The Origin of Man. Science 211:341-350.

1981

Luebben,R.A. Two Pueblo III Kiva Complexes Associated with Subterranean Rooms, Southwestern Colorado. Kiva

1982

48:63-81. 1983

The Grinnell Site: A Small Ceremonial Center Near Yucca House, Colorado. Journal ofIntermountain

Archeology 2:1-26. Luebben, R., and P. Nickens 1982 A Mass Interment in an Early Pueblo III Kiva in Southwestern Colorado. Journal ofIntermountain

Archeology 1:66-79. Lynd, R., and H. Lynd 1930

Middletown, a Study in American Culture. Harcourt, New York.

Mackey, J., and R. C. Green Largo-Gallina Towers: An Explanation. American Antiquity 44:144-154.

1979

Mahoney, N. M. 2000 Redefining the Scale of Chacoan Communities. In Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 19-27. Anthropological Papers, no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Mahoney, N. M., M. A. Adler, and J. W. Kendrick 2000 The Changing Scale and Configuration of Mesa Verde Communities. Kiva 66:67-90. Mahoney, N. M., and J. Kantner 2000 Chacoan Archaeology and Great House Communities. In Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 1-15. Anthropological Papers, no. 64, University ofArizona Press, Tucson. Malville, J. M. Chimney Rock and the Moon: The Shrine at the Edge of the World. In The Chimney Rock Archaeological Symposium, edited by J. M. Malville and G. Matlock, pp. 20-28. General Technical Report RM -227. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

1993

Malville, N. J. Two Fragmented Human Bone Assemblages from Yellow Jacket, Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 55:3-22.

1989

REFERENCES

312

Mann,M. 1986

The Sources ofSocial Power, Vol. I: A History ofPower from the Beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Marshall, M., J. Stein, R. Loose, and J. Novotny 1979

Anasazi Communities ofthe San Juan Basin. Public Service Company of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and State of New Mexico, Historic Preservation Bureau, Planning Division, Santa Fe.

Martin, D. L. Violence against Women in the La Plata River Valley (A.D. 1000-1300). In Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past, edited by D. L. Martin and D. W. Frayer, pp. 45-75. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

1997

Martin, P. S. 1936

Lowry Ruin in Southwestern Colorado. Anthropological Series, vol. 23, no. 1. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Marx,K. The German Ideology. In Karl Marx: Selected Writings, edited by D. McLellen, pp. 159-191. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

1977

Matson, R. G., and B. Chisholm Basketmaker II Subsistence: Carbon Isotopes and Other Dietary Indicators from Cedar Mesa, Utah.

1991

American Antiquity 56:444-459. Matson, R. G., W. D. Lipe, and W. R. Haase IV Adaptational Continuities and Occupational Discontinuities: The Cedar Mesa Anasazi. Journal ofField

1988

Archaeology 15:245-264. Matthews, M. H. Botanical Studies: Nature and Status of the Data Base. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Studies in EnvironmentalArchaeology, compiled by K. L. Petersen, V. L. Clay, M. H. Matthews, and S. W. Neusius, pp. 41-60. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver.

1985

McGuire, R. H., and D. J. Saitta Although They Have Petty Captains, They Obey Them Badly: The Dialectics of Prehispanic Western Pueblo Social Organization. American Antiquity 61:197-216.

1996

McIntosh, R. J. Archaeology and Mud Wall Decay in a West African Village. World Archaeology 6:154-171.

1974

McNitt, F. 1966

Richard Wetherill: Anasazi. Rev. ed. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Mick O'Hara, L. S. Nutritional Stability and Changing Faunal Resource Use in La Plata Valley Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1994

Mignonette, R. Faunal Material from Big Westwater Ruin. In Big Westwater Ruin, by L. W. Lindsay, pp. 157-161. Cultural Resources Series, no. 9. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah.

1981

REFERENCES

313

Miles, J. 1987 Bone Artifacts from Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, Volume III, Part II: Artifactual and Biological Analyses, edited by F. C. Mathien and T. C. Windes, pp. 651-678. Publications in Archeology, no. 18F. National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Mills, B. J. 1998 Migration and Pueblo IV Community Reorganization in the Silver Creek Area, East-Central Arizona. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, edited by K. A. Spielmann, pp. 65-80. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 51. Arizona State University, Tempe. Mills, B. J. (editor) 2000

Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Mills, B. J., and P. L. Crown 1995 Ceramic Production in the American Southwest: An Introduction. In Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, edited by B. J. Mills and P. L. Crown, pp. 1-29. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Mills, P. R. 1987 Use-Wear Analysis of Stone Axes from Sand Canyon Pueblo Ruin (5MT765), Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. 1993 An Axe to Grind: Functional Analysis ofAnasazi Stone Axes from Sand Canyon Pueblo Ruin (5MT765), Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 58:393-413. Mindeleff, V. 1989

A Study ofPueblo Architecture in Tusayan and Cibola. Reprinted. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Originally published 1891, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Minnis, P. E. 1987 Identification of Wood from Archaeological Sites in the American Southwest, I: Key for Gymnosperms.

Journal ofArchaeological Science 14:121- 131. 1989

Prehistoric Diet in the Northern Southwest: Macroplant Remains from Four-Corners Feces. American

Antiquity 54:543-563. 1991 1996

Famine Foods of the Northern American Desert Borderlands in Historical Context. Journal ofEthnobiology 11:231-257. Notes on Economic Uncertainty and Human Behavior in the Prehistoric North American Southwest. In Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by J. A. Tainter and B. B. Tainter, pp. 57-78. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, vol. 24. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

Mobley-Tanaka, J. 2001 Community and Commodity in the Pueblo III World: Exchange and Integration in the Yellow Jacket Community, A.D. 1150-1300. Dissertation improvement grant submitted to the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. (M. Hegmon, principal investigator). Morgan, L. H. 1881

Houses and House Life ofthe American Aborigines. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Morley, S. G. 1908 The Excavation of the Cannonball Ruins in Southwestern Colorado. American Anthropologist 10:596-610.

REFERENCES

314

Morris, E. H. 1921

The House ofthe Great Kiva at the Aztec Ruin. Anthropological Papers, vol. 26, part 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

1924

Burials in the Aztec Ruin: The Aztec Ruin Annex. Anthropological Papers, vol. 26, parts 3 and 4. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

1939

Archaeological Studies in the La Plata District, Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Publication no. 519. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Washington, D.C.

Morris, E. H., and R. F. Burgh 1941

Anasazi Basketry, Basketmaker II through Pueblo III. Publication no. 533. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Washington, D.C.

Morris, J. N. 1991

Archaeological Excavations on the Hovenweep Laterals. Four Corners Archaeological Project Report, no. 16. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado.

Muir,R.J. 1999a Intensification of Communal Ritual: Zooarchaeology of the Sand Canyon Locality. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago. 1999b Zooarchaeology of Sand Canyon Pueblo, Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Munro,N.D. 1994 An Investigation ofAnasazi Turkey Production in Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department ofArchaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Murdock, G. P. 1949

Social Structure. Macmillan, New York.

Murdock, G. P., and S. F. Wilson 1972 Settlement Patterns and Community Organization: Cross Cultural Codes 3. Ethnology 11:254-295. Naroll, R. 1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27:587-589. Neff,H. 1990 A Series of Routines Written in GAUSS Language. Programs on file, Missouri University Research Reactor, Columbia. 1994 RQ-Mode Principal Components Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data. Archaeometry 36:115-13°. Neily,R. B. 1983

The Prehistoric Community on the Colorado Plateau: An Approach to the Study ofChange and Survival in the Northern San Juan Area ofthe American Southwest. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Neitzel, J. E. 1999 Examining Social Organization in the Southwest: An Application of Multiscalar Analysis. In Great Towns and Regional Polities in the Prehistoric American Southwest and Southeast, edited by J. E. Neitzel, PP.183-213. Amerind Foundation Series, no. 3. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

REFERENCES

2000

315

Gender Hierarchies: A Comparative Analysis of Mortuary Data. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by P. L. Crown, pp. 137-168. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Nelson, B. A. 1994 Introduction: Approaches to Analyzing Prehistoric Community Dynamics. In The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study ofPrehistoric Social Organization, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard, pp. 3-7. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Nelson, B. A., and R. Anyon 1996 Fallow Valleys: Asynchronous Occupations in Southwestern New Mexico. Kiva 61:275-294. Nelson, B. A., T. A. Kohler, and K. W. Kintigh 1994 Demographic Alternatives: Consequences for Current Models of Southwe~ternPrehistory. In Understanding Complexity in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman and M. Gell-Mann, pp. 113-146. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, vol. 16. AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts. Nelson, B. A., and S. A. LeBlanc 1986

Short- Term Sedentism in the American Southwest: The Mimbres Valley Salado. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Nelson, B. A., D. L. Martin, A. C. Swedlund, P. R. Fish, and G. J. Armelagos 1994 Studies in Disruption: Demography and Health in the Prehistoric American Southwest. In Understanding Complexity in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by G. Gumerman and M. Gell-Mann, pp. 59-112. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, vol. 16. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. Nelson, M. C. 2000 Abandonment: Conceptualization, Representation, and Social Change. In Social Theory in Archaeology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 52-62. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Netting, R. M. 1990 Population, Permanent Agriculture, and Polities: Unpacking the Evolutionary Portmanteau. In The Evolution ofPoIiticaISystems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by S. Upham, pp. 21-61. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Netting R. M., R. R. Wilk, and E. J.Arnould (editors) 1984

Households: Comparative and Historical Studies ofthe Domestic Group. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Neusius, S. W. 1986a Faunal Remains from Aldea Sierritas. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Early Anasazi Sites in the Sagehen Flats, compiled by A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 381-398. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1986b Faunal Remains from Windy Wheat Hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Early Anasazi Sites in the Sagehen Flats, compiled by A. E. Kane and G. T. Gross, pp. 855-862. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1986c Faunal Remains from Periman Hamlet Area 1. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities

316

REFERENCES

at Dolores: Middle Canyon Area, compiled by A. E. Kane and C. K. Robinson, pp. 187-197. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1986d Faunal Remains from Le Moc Shelter. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Early Small Settlements in the Dolores River Canyon and Western Sagehen Flats Area, compiled by T. A. Kohler, W. D. Lipe, and A. E. Kane, pp. 279-296. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1986e Faunal Remains from Prince Hamlet. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Early Small Settlements in the Dolores River Canyon and Western Sagehen Flats Area, compiled by T. A. Kohler, W. D. Lipe, and A. E. Kane, pp. 483-496. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1988 Faunal Exploitation during the McPhee Phase: Evidence from the McPhee Community Cluster. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: McPhee Village, compiled by A. E. Kane and C. K. Robinson, pp. 1,209-1,291. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Neusius, S. W., and M. Gould 1988 Faunal Remains: Implications for Dolores Anasazi Adaptation. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village, compiled by W. D. Lipe, J. N. Morris, and T. A. Kohler, pp. 1,049-1,135. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Newcomb, J. M. 1999 Silver Creek Settlement Patterns and Paleodemography. In Living on the Edge ofthe Rim: Excavations and Analysis ofthe Silver Creek Archaeological Research Project 1993-1998, edited by B. J. Mills, S. A. Herr, and S. Van Keuren, pp. 31-52. Series, no. 192. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. Nickens, P. R. 1981

Pueblo III Communities in Transition: Environment and Adaptation in Johnson Canyon. Memoirs, no. 2. Colorado Archaeological Society, Boulder.

Nicklaw, D. J. 1995 Social Complexity at Sand Canyon Pueblo: A Case Study from Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Nielson, A. S., J. C. Janetski, and J. D. Wilde 1985

Final Recapture Wash Archaeological Project 1981-1983, San Juan County, Utah. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series, nos. 85-87. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Nisbet, R. A. 1967

The Sociological Tradition. Basic Books, New York.

Nordby, L. V. 1973 Salvage Excavations in Mancos Canyon, Ute Mountain Ute Homelands, Colorado, during the Summer of 1972. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1999 Introduction. In Mesa Verde: AncientArchitecture, authored by J. W. Fewkes, pp. vi-x. Avanyu Publishing, Albuquerque. Nordenskiold, G. 1979

The CliffDwellers ofMesa Verde, Southwestern Colorado: Their Pottery and Implements. Translated by D. L. Morgan. Reprinted. Rio Grande Press, Glorieta, New Mexico. Originally published 1893, P. A. Norstedt and Saner, Stockholm.

REFERENCES

317

Oliver, T. J. 2001 Warfare in Tonto Basin. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S.A. LeBlanc, PP.195-217. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Orcutt, J. D., E. Blinman, and T. A. Kohler 1990 Explanations of Population Aggregation in the Mesa Verde Region Prior to A.D. 900. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 196-212. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Ortiz,A. 1969

1972

The Tewa World: Space, Time, Being, and Becoming in a Pueblo Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Ritual Drama and the Pueblo World View. In New Perspectives on the Pueblos, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 135-162. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Ortman, S. G. 1995a Escaping the Confines of Object-ive Analysis: Perspectives on the Type and Attribute Approaches to Ceramic Chronology. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1995b A Tale of Three Seriations, or, the Variable Relationship between Ceramic Types and Chronological Variation: Response to Duff. Unpublished research paper for ASM 566: Advanced Quantitative Methods, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1998 Corn Grinding and Community Organization in the Pueblo Southwest, A.D. 1150-1550. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, edited by K. A. Spielmann, pp. 165-192. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 51. Arizona State University, Tempe. 2000a Artifacts. In The Archaeology ofCastle Rock Pueblo: A Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwestern Colorado [HTML Title], edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Available: . Date of use: October 3, 2001. 2000b Conceptual Metaphor in the Archaeological Record: Methods and an Example from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 65:613-645. 2002 Artifacts. In Woods Canyon Pueblo [HTML Title], edited by M. J. Churchill. Available: . Under construction. Ortman, S. G., D. M. Glowacki, M. J. Churchill, and K. A. Kuckelman 2000 Pattern and Variation in Northern San Juan Village Histories. Kiva 66:123-146. Ortman, S. G., and R. H. Wilshusen 1996

Letter Report ofSalvage-Based Research by Crow Canyon Archaeological Center at Hedley Ruins (42SA2276o), San Juan County, Utah, with Recommendations for Site Management and Protection. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Report submitted to The Archaeological Conservancy, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Palmer, W. C. 1965

Meteorological Drought. Research Paper, no. 45. U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Climatology, U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C.

Parks, J. A., and J. S. Dean 1998 Tree-ring Dating of Balcony House: A Chronological, Architectural, and Social Interpretation. In Balcony House: A History ofa CliffDwelling, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, edited by K. Fiero, pp. B1-B20. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, Colorado.

318

REFERENCES

Parsons, E. C. 1974 Some Aztec and Pueblo Parallels. In The Mesoamerican Southwest: Readings in Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and Ethnology, edited by B. Hedrick, J. Kelley, and C. Riley, pp. 131-172. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 1996 Pueblo Indian Religion. Reprinted. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Originally published 1939, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Pepper, G. H. 1920

Pueblo Bonito. Anthropological Papers, no. 27. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Perkins, T. 1999 Social Organization and Changing Labor Patterns in Anasazi Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofVirginia, Charlottesville. Petersen, K. L. 1987 Agricultural Potential Classification in the Dolores Project Area. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Settlement and Environment, compiled by K. L. Petersen and J. D. Orcutt, pp. 121129. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1988

Climate and the Dolores River Anasazi: A Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction from a 10,000 Year Pollen Record, La Plata Mountains, Southwestern Colorado. Anthropological Papers, no. 113. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Petersen, K. L., and V. L. Clay 1987 Characteristics and Archaeological Implications of Cold Air Drainage in the Dolores Project Area. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Settlement and Environment, compiled by K. L. Petersen and J. D. Orcutt, pp. 186-214. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Phillips, D. A. 1993 Rethinking Chaco. Paper presented at the 26th Chacmool Conference, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Pierce, C., M. D. Varien, J. Driver, T. Gross, and J. Keleher 1999 Artifacts. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing, edited by M. D. Varien, Chapter 15. CD-ROM, Verso 1.0. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado (distributed by the University ofArizona Press, Tucson). Pierce, C. D. 1999 Explaining Corrugated Pottery in the Southwest: An Evolutionary Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Plog, F. 1974

1984

The Study ofPrehistoric Change. Academic Press, New York. Exchange, Tribes, and Alliances: The Northern Southwest. American Archaeology 4:217-223.

Plog, S. 1990 Agriculture, Sedentism, and Environment in the Evolution of Political Systems. In The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by S. Upham, pp. 177-199. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

REFERENCES

319

Plog, S. (editor) 1986

Spatial Organization and Exchange: Archaeological Survey on Northern Black Mesa. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Podolefsky, A. Population Density, Land Tenure, and Law in the New Guinea Highlands: Reflections on Legal Evolution. American Anthropologist 89:581-595.

1987

Porter, C. Ruins in Our Beanfields. In Insights into the Ancient Ones, 2nd ed., edited by J. H. Berger and E. F. Berger, pp. 1-4. Interdisciplinary Supplemental Educational Programs, Cortez, Colorado.

1984

Potter, J. M. The Effects of Sedentism on the Processing of Hunted Carcasses in the Southwest: A Comparison of Two Pueblo IV Sites in Central New Mexico. Kiva 60:411-428. 1997 Communal Ritual, Feasting, and Social Differentiation in Late Prehistoric Zuni Communities. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1998 The Structure of Open Space in Late Prehistoric Settlements in the Southwest. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, edited by K. A. Spielmann, pp. 137-164. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 51. Arizona State University, Tempe. 2000 Pots, Parties, and Politics: Communal Feasting in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 1995

65:471-49 2.

Powell, S. 1983

1988

Mobility and Adaptation: The Anasazi ofBlack Mesa, Arizona. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Anasazi Demographic Patterns and Organizational Responses: Assumptions and Interpretive Difficulties. In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 168-191. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Powers, R. P., W. B. Gillespie, and S. H. Lekson 1983

The Outlier Survey: A Regional View ofSettlement in the San Juan Basin. Reports of the Chaco Center, no. 3. National Park Service, Albuquerque.

Preucel, R. W. Making Pueblo Communities: Architectural Discourse at Kotyiti, New Mexico. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 58-77. Routledge, London.

2000

Prudden, T. M. The Prehistoric Ruins of the San Juan Watershed in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. Ameri-

1903 1918

can Anthropologist 5:224-288. A Further Study ofPrehistoric Small House Ruins in the San Juan Watershed. Memoirs, vol. 5, no.!. American Anthropological Association, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Purcell, D. E. 1993 Pottery Kilns of the Northern San Juan Anasazi Tradition. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

REFERENCES

320

Rafferty, J. E. 1985 The Archaeological Record on Sedentariness: Recognition, Development, and Implications. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 113-156. Academic Press, New York. Rappaport, R. A. 1971 Ritual, Sanctity, and Cybernetics. American Anthropologist 73:59-76. Rautman, A. E. 1993 Resource Variability, Risk, and the Structure of Social Networks: An Example from the Prehistoric Southwest. American Antiquity 58:4°3-424. 1996 Risk, Reciprocity, and the Operation of Social Networks. In Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by J. A. Tainter and B. B. Tainter, pp. 197-222. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, vol. 24. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. Reed,A.D. 1979 The Dominguez Ruin: A McElmo Phase Pueblo in Southwestern Colorado. In The Archeology and Stabilization ofthe Dominguez and Escalante Ruins, authored by A. D. Reed, J. A. Hallasi, A. S. White, and D. A. Breternitz, Part I, pp. i-196. Cultural Resource Series, no. 7. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, Denver. Reed, A. D., J. A. Hallasi, A. S. White, and D. A. Breternitz 1979

The Archaeology and Stabilization ofthe Dominguez and Escalante Ruins. Cultural Resource Series NO.7. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, Denver.

Reed,E.K. 1956 Types ofVillage-Plan Layouts in the Southwest. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 11-17. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, no. 23, New York. 1958 Excavations in Mancos Canyon, Colorado. Anthropological Papers, no. 35. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Reid, J. J. 1985 Measuring Social Complexity in the American Southwest. In Status, Structure, and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstructions, edited by M. Thompson, M. T. Garcia, and F. J. Kense, pp. 167-173. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Chacmool Conference. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Alberta. 1989 A Grasshopper Perspective on the Mogollon of the Arizona Mountains. In Dynamics ofSouthwestern Prehistory, edited by L. S. Cordell and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 65-97. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington' D.C. 1997 Return to Migration, Population Movement, and Ethnic Identity in the American Southwest. In Vanishing River: Landscapes and Lives ofthe Lower Verde River, edited by S. M. Whittlesey, R. Ciolek-Torrello, and J. H. Altschul, pp. 629-638. SRI Press, Tucson, Arizona. Reid, J. J., J. R. Welch, B. K. Montgomery, and M. N. Zedefio 1996 A Demographic Overview of the Late Pueblo III Period in the Mountains of East-Central Arizona. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 73-85. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

REFERENCES

321

Renfrew, A. C. Towards a Cognitive Archaeology. In The Ancient Mind: Elements ofa Cognitive Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 3-12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

1994

Renfrew,C. Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. In Peer Polity Interaction and SocioPolitical Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, pp. 1-18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

1986

Rice, G. E. A Systemic Explanation of a Change in Mogollon Settlement Patterns. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University ofWashington, Seattle. 2001 Warfare and Massing in the Salt and Gila Basins of Central Arizona. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 289-329. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1975

Rice, G. E., and S.A. LeBlanc (editors) 2001

Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Robinson, W. J., and C. M. Cameron 1991 A Directory ofTree-Ring Dated Prehistoric Sites in the American Southwest. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University ofArizona, Tucson. Rocek, T.R. Pithouses and Pueblos on Two Continents: Interpretations of Sedentism and Mobility in the Southwestern United States and Southwest Asia. In Seasonality and Sedentism: Archaeological Perspectives from Old and New World Sites, edited by T. R. Rocek and o. Bar-Yosef, pp. 199-216. Peabody Museum Bulletin, no. 6. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1998

Rocek, T. R. and o. Bar-Yosef (editors) 1998 Seasonality and Sedentism: Archaeological Perspectives from Old and New World Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin, no. 6. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Rodeck, H. G. Animal and Bird Bones from the Durango Sites. In Basketmaker II Sites Near Durango, Colorado, by E. H. Morris and R. F. Burgh, pp. 117-121. Publication no. 604. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Washington D.C.

1954

Rogers, J. D., and B. D. Smith (editors) 1995 Mississippian Communities and Households. University ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Rohn,A.H. Postulation of Socio-economic groups from Archaeological Evidence. In Contributions ofthe Wetherill Mesa Archeological Project, assembled by D. Osborne, pp. 65-69. Memoirs, no. 19. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 1971 Mug House, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. Archeological Research Series, no. 7- D. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 1977 Cultural Change and Continuity on Chapin Mesa. Regents Press of Kansas, Lawrence.

1965

322

1989 1994

n.d.

REFERENCES

Northern San Juan Prehistory. In Dynamics ofSouthwest Prehistory, edited by L. S. Cordell and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 149-177. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. The Residence Unit in Anasazi and Pueblo History. In Proceedings ofthe Anasazi Symposium, 1991, compiled by A. Hutchinson and J. E. Smith, pp. 247-256. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, Colorado. Unpublished sketch map of Cahone Ruin (Ansel Hall Ruin), Colorado.

Roney,J.R. 1995 Mesa Verdean Manifestations South of the San Juan River. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 14:170-183. Rood,R.J. 1993 Identification of Faunal Remains and Modified Bone from 5MT3876. In Preliminary Report on 1990-1991 Excavations at Hanson Pueblo Site SMT3876, by J. N. Morris, L. Honeycutt, and J. Fetterman, pp. 54-58. Indian Camp Ranch Archaeological Report, no. 2. Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Yellow Jacket, Colorado. Roper,D.C. 1979 The Method and Theory of Site Catchment Analysis: A Review. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 119-140. Academic Press, New York. Rose, M. R., J. S. Dean, and W. J. Robinson 1981

The Past Climate ofArroyo Hondo, New Mexico, Reconstructed from Tree Rings. Arroyo Hondo Archaeological Series, no. 4. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Rose, M. R., W. J. Robinson, and J. S. Dean 1982 Dendroclimatic Reconstruction for the Southeastern Colorado Plateau. Manuscript on file, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University ofArizona, Tucson. Sayre, E. V. 1975 Brookhaven Procedures for Statistical Analysis of Multivariate Archaeometric Data. Manuscript on file as Brookhaven National Laboratory Report BNL-23128, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York. Schaafsma, P. 1980

Indian Rock Art ofthe Southwest. School ofAmerican Research and University of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe and Albuquerque.

2000

Warrior, Shield, and Star: Imagery and Ideology ofPueblo Warfare. Western Edge Press, Santa Fe.

Schelberg, J. D. 1984 Analogy, Complexity, and Regionally-Based Perspectives. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by W. J. Judge and J. D. Schelberg, pp. 5-21. Reports of the Chaco Center, no. 8. National Park Service, Albuquerque. Schiffer, M. B. 1987

Formation Processes ofthe Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Schlanger, S. H. 1985 Prehistoric Population Dynamics in the Dolores Area, Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

REFERENCES

1987

1988

Population Measurement, Size, a~d Change, A. D. 600-1175. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Settlement and Environment, compiled by K. L. Petersen and J. D. Orcutt, pp. 568-613. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Patterns of Population Movement and Long-term Population Growth in Southwestern Colorado.

American Antiquity 53:773-793. 1992

Recognizing Persistent Places in Anasazi Settlement Systems. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, pp. 91-112. Plenum Press, New York.

Schlanger, S. H., and R. H. Wilshusen 1993 Local Abandonments and Regional Conditions in the North American Southwest. In Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, edited by C. M. Cameron and S. A. Tomka, pp. 85-98. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Schoenwetter, J. 1966 A Re-Evaluation of the Navajo Reservoir Pollen Chronology. El Palacio 73(1):19-26. 1967 Pollen Survey of the Chuska Valley. In An Archaeological Survey ofthe Chuska Valley and the Chaco Plateau, New Mexico, Part I: Natural Science Studies, edited by A. H. Harris, J. Schoenwetter, and A. H. Warren, pp. 72-103. Museum of New Mexico Research Records, no. 4. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe. 1970 Archaeological Pollen Studies of the Colorado Plateau. American Antiquity 35:35-48. Schoenwetter, J., and F. W. Eddy 1964

Alluvial and Palynological Reconstruction ofEnvironments, Navajo Reservoir District. Papers in Anthropology, no. 13. Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Schulman, A. 1950 Pre-Columbian Towers in the Southwest. American Antiquity 15:288-297. Schulman, E. 1942 Variations between Ring Chronologies in and Near the Colorado River Drainage Area. Tree-Ring Bul-

letin 8:26-32. 1946

Dendrochronology at Mesa Verde National Park. Tree-Ring Bulletin 12:18-24.

Sebastian, L. 1990 Sociopolitical Complexity and the Chaco System. In Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown and W. J. Judge, pp. 109-134. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1992 The Chaco Anasazi: Sociopolitical Evolution in the Prehistoric Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Service, E. R. 1971

Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. 2nd ed. Random House, New York.

Shelley, S. D. 1993 Analysis of the Faunal Remains from the Wallace Ruin: A Chacoan Outlier near Cortez, Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Shennan, S. J. 1993 After Social Evolution: A New Archaeological Agenda. In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? edited by N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, pp. 53-59. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

REFERENCES

Shipman, J. H. Human Skeletal Remains from the Salmon Ruin (LA 8846). In Investigations at the Salmon Site: The Structure ofChacoan Society in the Northern Southwest, voL 4, edited by C. Irwin-Williams and P. H. Shelley, pp. 45-58. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

1980

Shore,C. Community. In The Blackwell Dictionary ofTwentieth-Century Social Thought, edited by W. Outhwaite and T. Bottomore, pp. 98-99. Blackwell, Oxford.

1993

Simon, A. W., and D. C. Gosser 2001 Conflict and Exchange among the Salado of Tonto Basin. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 219-238. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Smith,J.E. 1987

Mesas, Cliffs, and Canyons: The University ofColorado Survey ofMesa Verde National Park, 1971-1977. Mesa Verde Research Series, no. 3. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, Colorado.

Smith, R. L. W. Faunal Remains. In The Mitchell Springs Ruin Group, edited by D. E. Dove, R. L. W. Smith, and D. M. Dove, pp. 51-82. Archaeological Report, no. 1. Glendale Community College, Glendale, Arizona.

1997

Sofaer,A. The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture: A Cosmological Expression. In Anasazi Architecture and American Design, edited by B. H. Morrow and V. B. Price, pp. 88-132. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1997

Speth, J. D., and S. L. Scott Horticulture and Large-Mammal Hunting: The Role of Resource Depletion and the Constraints of Time and Labor. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications ofSedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 71-79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

1989

Speth, J. D., and K. A. Spielmann 1983 Energy Source, Protein Metabolism, and Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Strategies. Journal ofAnthropo-

logical Archaeology 2:1-31. Spielmann, K. A. Late Prehistoric Exchange between the Southwest and the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist

1983

28:257-272.

Spielmann, K. A. (editor) 1998

Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 51. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Spielmann, K. A., and E. A. Angstadt-Leto Hunting, Gathering, and Health in the Prehistoric Southwest. In Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by J. A. Tainter and B. B. Tainter, pp. 79-106. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, voL 24. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

1996

REFERENCES

32 5

Spinden, H. J. 1933

Songs ofthe Tewa. Exposition of Indian Arts, New York.

Stephen, A. M. 1969

Hopi Journal ofAlexander M. Stephen, edited by E. C. Parsons. Reprinted. AMC Press, New York. Originally published 1936, Columbia University Press, New York.

Stiger, M. A. 1979 Mesa Verde Subsistence Patterns from Basketmaker to Pueblo III. Kiva 44:133-144. Stodder,A. W. 1987 The Physical Anthropology and Mortuary Practice of the Dolores Anasazi: An Early Pueblo Population in Local and Regional Perspective. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Settlement and Environment, edited by K. L. Petersen and J. D. Orcutt, pp. 335-504. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Stone,G.D. 1991 Agricultural Territories in a Dispersed Settlement System. Current Anthropology 32:343-353. 1992 Social Distance, Spatial Relations, and Agricultural Production among the Kofyar of Namu District, Plateau State, Nigeria. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 11:152-172. 1993 Agricultural Abandonment: A Comparative Study in Historical Ecology. In Abandonment ofSettlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, edited by C. M. Cameron and S. A. Tomka, pp. 74-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 1996 Settlement Ecology: The Social and Spatial Organization ofKofyar Agriculture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Struever, S. 1971 Comments on Archaeological Data Requirements and Research Strategies. American Antiquity 36:9-19. Stuart, D. E., and R. P. Gauthier 1981

Prehistoric New Mexico: Background for Survey. New Mexico Historic Preservation Bureau, Santa Fe.

Swentzell, R. 1990 Pueblo Space, Form, and Mythology. In Pueblo Style and Regional Architecture, edited by N. C. Markovich, W. F. E. Preiser, and F. G. Sturm, pp. 23-30. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Szuter, C. R. 1991

Hunting by Prehistoric Horticulturalists in the American Southwest. Garland, New York.

Szuter, C. R., and F. E. Bayham 1989 Sedentism and Prehistoric Animal Procurement among Desert Horticulturalists of the North American Southwest. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications ofSedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 80-95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Szuter, C. R., and W. B. Gillespie 1994 Interpreting Use ofAnimal Resources at Prehistoric American Southwest Communities. In The Ancient Southwestern Community, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard, pp. 67-76. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

326

REFERENCES

Tchernov, E. 1995 Environmental and Socioeconomic Background to Domestication in the Southern Levant. In Before Farming: Hunter-Gatherer Society and Subsistence, edited by D. V. Campana, pp. 39-77. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supplement to Volume 12. University of Pennsylvania Museum ofArchaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. Thompson, C. 1990 Anasazi Social Boundaries and Resource Access: The Faunal Evidence from Nancy Patterson Village, Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department ofAnthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Thompson, E. P. 1963

The Making ofthe English Working Class. Pantheon, New York.

Thompson, I. 1993

1995

The Towers ofHovenweep. Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, Colorado. Pueblos of the Mesa Verde. Archaeology 48(5):58-63.

Thompson, I., M. Varien, S. KenzIe, and R. Swentzell 1997 Prehistoric Architecture with Unknown Function. In Anasazi Architecture and American Design, edited by B. Morrow and V. B. Price, PP.149-158. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque. Thornthwaite, C. W., C. F. S. Sharpe, and E. F. Dosch. 1942

Climate and Accelerated Erosion in the Arid and Semi-Arid Southwest, with Special Reference to the Polacca Wash Drainage Basin, Arizona. Technical Bulletin, no. 808. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Washington, D.C.

Tidswell, V. 1978

Pattern and Process in Human Geography. University Tutorial Press, Slough, England.

Tilley, C. 1994

A Phenomenology ofLandscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Berg, Oxford.

Titiev, M. 1992

Old Oraibi: A Study ofthe Hopi Indians ofThird Mesa. Reprinted. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Originally published 1944, Papers of the Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 22, no. I, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Toll,H.W. 1993 The Role of the Totah in Regions and Regional Definition. Paper presented at the Anasazi Symposium, San Juan College, Farmington, New Mexico. 2001 Making and Breaking Pots in the Chaco World. American Antiquity 66:56-78. Toll, H. W., and P. J. McKenna 1987 The Ceramography of Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, Volume III, Part I: Artifactual and Biological Analysis, edited by F. C. Mathien and T. C. Windes, PP.19-230. Publications in Archeology, no. 18F. National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Trevor-Roper, H. 1983 The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland. In The Invention ofTradition, edited by E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, pp. 15-41. Cambridge University Press, New York.

REFERENCES

Trigger, B. G. Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behavior. World Archaeology

1990

22:119-132.

Tuan, Y.-F. New Mexican Gullies: A Critical Review and Some Recent Observations. Annals ofthe Association of

1966

American Geographers 56:573-597. Tucker, G. C., Jr. The Prehistoric Settlement System on Chimney Rock Mesa, South-Central Colorado, A.D. 925-1125. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

1981

Tuggle, H. D., and J. J. Reid 2001 Conflict and Defense in the Grasshopper Region of East-Central Arizona. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 85-107. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Turner, C. G., II, and J. A. Turner 1999

Man Corn: Cannibalism and Violence in the Prehistoric American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Upham,S. 1982

Polities and Power: An Economic and Political History ofthe Western Pueblo. Academic Press, New York.

Upham, S. (editor) 1990

The Evolution ofPolitica I Systems, Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Upham, S., and F. Plog The Interpretation of Prehistoric Political Complexity in the Central and Northern Southwest: Toward a Mending of the Models. Journal ofField Archaeology 13:223-238.

1986

Van Keuren, S. 1999

Ceramic Design Structure and the Organization ofCibola White Ware Production in the Grasshopper Region, Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series, no. 191. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Van West, C. R. 1990

Modeling Prehistoric Climatic Variability and Agricultural Production in Southwestern Colorado: A GIS Approach. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

1994

1996

Modeling Prehistoric Agricultural Productivity in Southwestern Colorado: A GIS Approach. Reports of Investigations, no. 67. Department ofAnthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, and Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. The Heuristic Value of Estimates of Prehistoric Agricultural Production: A Case Study from Southwestern Colorado. In Interpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Overarching Patterns, edited by P. R. Fish and J. J. Reid, pp. 133-145. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 48. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Van West, C. R., M. A. Adler, and E. Huber 1987

Archaeological Survey and Testing Near Sand Canyon Pueblo, Montezuma County, Colorado, 1986 Field

REFERENCES

32 8

Season. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Resource Area Office, Durango, Colorado. Van West, C. R., and J. S. Dean 2000 Environmental Characteristics of the A.D. 900-1300 Period in the Central Mesa Verde Region. Kiva 66:19-44. Van West, C., and W. D. Lipe 1992 Modeling Prehistoric Climate and Agriculture in Southwestern Colorado. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 105-119. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Varien, M. D. 1997a New Perspectives on Settlement Patterns: Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1997b New Perspectives on Settlement Patterns: Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1999 Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2000 Communities and the Chacoan Regional System. In Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 149-156. Anthropological Papers, no. 64. University ofArizona Press, Tucson. Varien, M. D. (editor) 1999

The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing. CD-ROM, Verso 1.0. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado (distributed by the University of Arizona Press, Tucson).

2000

Kiva 66:5-213.

Varien, M. D., and K. A. Kuckelman 1999 Summary and Conclusions. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing [HTML Title], edited by M. D. Varien, Chapter 22. Available: . Date of use: August 6, 2001. Varien, M. D., K. A. Kuckelman, and J. H. Kleidon 1992 The Site Testing Program. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 45-67. Occasional Papers, no. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Varien, M. D., and R. R. Lightfoot 1989 Ritual and Nonritual Activities in Mesa Verde Region Pit Structures. In The Architecture ofSocial Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 73-87. Occasional Papers, no. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Varien, M. D., W. D. Lipe, M. A. Adler, I. M. Thompson, and B. A. Bradley 1996 Southwestern Colorado and Southeastern Utah Settlement Patterns, A.D. 1100 to 1300. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 86-113. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Varien, M. D., W. D. Lipe, B. A. Bradley, M. A. Adler, and I. M. Thompson 1990 Southwest Colorado and Southeast Utah Mesa Verde Region Settlement, A.D. 1100 to 1300. Paper pre-

REFERENCES

1991

32 9

sented at the Conference on Pueblo Cultures in Transition: A.D. 1150-1350 in the American Southwest, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Regional Context. In Sand Canyon Locality Context: Research Design and Preliminary Results, compiled by R. R. Lightfoot, PP.158-177. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Resource Area Office, Durango, Colorado.

Varien, M. D., and B. Mills 1997 Accumulations Research: Problems and Prospects for Estimating Site Occupation Span. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 4(2):141-191. Varien, M. D., and J. M. Potter 1997 Unpacking the Discard Equation: Simulating the Accumulation ofArtifacts in the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 62:194-213. Varien, M. D., C. R. Van West, and G. S. Patterson 2000 Competition, Cooperation, and Conflict: Agricultural Production and Community Catchments in the Central Mesa Verde Region. Kiva 66:45-65. Vivian, R. G. 1959

The Hubbard Site and Other Tri- Wall Structures in New Mexico and Colorado. Archeological Research Series, no. 5. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Vivian, R. G., and T. W. Mathews 1965

Kin Kletso: A Pueblo III Community in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Technical Series, no. 6, part 1. Southwestern Monuments Association, Globe, Arizona.

Vivian, R. G., and P. Reiter 1965

The Great Kivas ofChaco Canyon and Their Relationships. Monographs, no. 22. School ofAmerican Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Waitley,D. 1999

William Henry Jackson: Framing the Frontier. Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana.

Walker, D. N. 1990 Zooarchaeology of the Green Lizard Site (5MT3901), Colorado. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 1993 Faunal Remains. In The Duckfoot Site, Volume 1: Descriptive Archaeology, edited by R. R. Lightfoot and M. C. Etzkorn, pp. 239-252. Occasional Papers, no. 3. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Wallace, A. F. C. 1966

Religion: An Anthropological View. Random House, New York.

Wallace, H. D., and W. H. Doelle 2001 Classic Period Warfare in Southern Arizona. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 239-287. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Wason,P.K. 1994

The Archaeology ofRank. Cambridge University Press, New York.

330

REFERENCES

Waterworth, R. M. R., and E. Blinman 1986 Modified Sherds, Unidirectional Abrasion, and Pottery Scrapers. Pottery Southwest 13(2) :4-7. Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins (editors) 1987 A Utah Flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs, no. 9, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Wendorf, F., and E. K. Reed 1955 An Alternative Reconstruction of Northern Rio Grande Prehistory. EI Palacio 62(5-6):131-173. West,S.M. 1992 Temper, Thermal Shock, and Cooking Pots: A Study of Tempering Materials and Their Ethnographic, Archaeological and Physical Significance in Traditional Cooking Pottery. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson. Whalen, M. E., and P. A. Gilman 1990 Introduction. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 71-75. Westview Press, Boulder. White, T.D. 1977 An Analysis of the 1976 Faunal Remains. In Hovenweep 1976, authored by J. C. Winter, pp. 237-242. Archeological Report, no. 3. San Jose State University, San Jose, California. 1992 Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Whiteley, P. M. 1985a Unpacking Hopi cCClans": Another Vintage Model Out of Africa? Journal ofAnthropological Research 41:359-374. 1985b Unpacking Hopi cCClans" II: Further Questions about Hopi Descent Groups? Journal ofAnthropological

Research 42:9-79. Whittlesey, S. M., R. Ciolek-Torrello, and J. H. Altschul 1997

Vanishing River: Landscapes and Lives ofthe Lower Verde Valley. The Lower Verde Valley Archaeological Project: Overview, Synthesis, and Conclusions. SRI Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Wiessner, P. 1982 Beyond Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: A Comment on Binford's Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47:171-178. 1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis of Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San. Journal ofAnthro-

pological Archaeology 3:190-234. Wilcox, D. R. 1981 Changing Perspectives on the Protohistoric Pueblos, A.D. 1450-1700. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, A.D. 1450-1700, edited by D. R. Wilcox and W. B. Masse, pp. 378-409. Anthropological Research Papers, no. 24. Arizona State University, Tempe. 1996 Pueblo III People and Polity in Relational Context. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World: A.D. 1150-1350, edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 241-254. University ofArizona Press, Tucson. Wilcox, D. R., and J. Haas 1994 The Scream of the Butterfly: Competition and Conflict in the Prehistoric Southwest. In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 211-238. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe.

REFERENCES

331

Wilcox, D. R., G. Robertson Jr., and J. S. Wood 2001a Antecedents to Perry Mesa: Early Pueblo III Defensive Systems in West-Central Arizona. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 109-140. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2001b Organized for War: The Perry Mesa Settlement System and Its Central Arizona Neighbors. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, pp. 141-194. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Wilcox, D. R., and C. Sternberg 1983

Hohokam Ballcourts and Their Interpretation. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series, no. 160. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Wilk, R. R., and R. M. Netting 1984 Households: Changing Forms and Functions. In Households: Comparative and Historical Studies ofthe Domestic Group, edited by R. M. Netting, R. R. Wilk, and E. J. Arnould, pp. 1-28. University of California Press, Berkeley. Williams, R. 1976

Keywords. Oxford University Press, New York.

Williamson, R. A. 1984

Living the Sky: The Cosmos ofthe American Indian. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Wills,W.H. 2000 Political Leadership and the Construction of Chacoan Great Houses, A.D. 1020-1140. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by B. J. Mills, PP.19-44. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2001 Ritual and Mound Formation during the Bonito Phase in Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity 66:433-452. Wills, W. H., and R. D. Leonard 1994 Preface. In The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study ofPrehistoric Social Organization, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard, pp. xiii-xvi. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Wills, W. H., and R. D. Leonard (editors) 1994

The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study ofPrehistoric Social Organization. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Wilshusen, R. H. 1986 The Relationship between Abandonment Mode and Ritual Use in Pueblo I Anasazi Protokivas. Journal

ofField Archaeology 13:245-254. 1988

1989

1991

Abandonment of Structures. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Additive and Reductive Technologies, compiled by E. Blinman, C. J. Phagan, and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 673-702. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Unstuffing the Estufa: Ritual Floor Features in Anasazi Pit Structures and Pueblo Kivas. In The Architecture ofSocial Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 89-111. Occasional Papers, no. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Early Villages in the American Southwest: Cross-Cultural and Archaeological Perspectives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

332

1995

1999

REFERENCES

The Cedar Hill Special Treatment Project: Late Pueblo I, Early Navajo, and Historic Occupations in Northwestern New Mexico. Research Papers, no. 1. La Plata Archaeological Consultants, Dolores, Colorado. Pueblo I (A.D. 750-900). In Colorado Prehistory: A Contextfor the Southern Colorado River Basin, edited by W. D. Lipe, M. D. Varien, and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 196-241. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

Wilshusen, R. H., and E. Blinman 1992 Pueblo I Village Formation: A Reevaluation of Sites Recorded by Earl Morris on Ute Mountain Tribal Lands. Kiva 57:251-269. Wilshusen, R. H., M. J. Churchill, and J. M. Potter 1997 Prehistoric Reservoirs and Water Basins in the Mesa Verde Region: Intensification ofWater Collection Strategies during the Great Pueblo Period. American Antiquity 62:664-681. Wilshusen, R. H., and S. G. Ortman 1999 Rethinking the Pueblo I Period in the San Juan Drainage: Aggregation, Migration, and Cultural Diversity. Kiva 64:369-399. Wilshusen, R., and S. Schlanger 1993 Late Pueblo I Population Movement in the Northern Southwest: The Big Picture. Paper presented at the Anasazi Symposium, San Juan College, Farmington, New Mexico. Wilshusen, R. H., L. M. Sesler, and T. D. Hovezak 2000 Pueblo I Sites across the San Juan Region. In Frances Mesa Alternative Treatment Project, compiled by R. H. Wilshusen, T. D. Hovezak, and L. M. Sesler, pp. 111-158. Research Papers, no. 3. La Plata Archaeological Consultants, Dolores, Colorado. Wilshusen, R. H., and C. D. Wilson 1995 Reformatting the Social Landscape in the Late Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II Period: The Cedar Hill Data in Regional Context. In The Cedar Hill Special Treatment Project: Late Pueblo I, Early Navajo, and Historic Occupations in Northwestern New Mexico, compiled by R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 43-80. Research Papers, no. 1. La Plata Archaeological Consultants, Dolores, Colorado. Wilson, C. D. 1991 Ceramic Analysis: Hovenweep Laterals Project. In Archaeological Excavations on the Hovenweep Laterals, authored by J. N. Morris, pp. 677-762. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado. Wilson, D. N. 1990 Twelve Burials from Yellow Jacket, Site 5MT5, Main Yellow Jacket Site, Yellow Jacket, Colorado. Manuscript on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Wilson, P. J. 1988

The Domestication ofthe Human Species. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Windes, T. C. 1984 A New Look at Population in Chaco Canyon. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by W. J. Judge and J. D. Schelberg, pp. 75-87. Reports of the Chaco Center, no. 8, National Park Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1987a Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, Volume 1. Publications in Archeology, no. 18F. National Park Service, Santa Fe.

REFERENCES

1987b

1987c

333

Some Ground Stone Tools from Pueblo Alto. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, Volume III, Part I: Artifactual and Biological Analyses, edited by F. C. Mathien and T. C. Windes, pp. 291-358. Publications in Archeology, no. 18F. National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Introduction. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, Volume III, Part I: Artifactual and Biological Analyses, edited by F. C. Mathien and T. C. Windes, pp. 1-18. Publications in Archeology, no. 18F. National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Windes, T. C., R. M. Anderson, B. K. Johnson, and C. A. Ford 2000 Sunrise, Sunset: Sedentism and Mobility in the Chaco East Community. In Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 39-60. Anthropological Papers, no. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Windes, T. C., and P. J. McKenna 2001 Going against the Grain: Wood Production in Chacoan Society. American Antiquity 66:119-14°. Wolf,E.R. 1982

Europe and the People without History. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Woodbury, R. B. 1954

Prehistoric Stone Implements ofNortheastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 34. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Wright, H. E., Jr., A. M. Bent, B. S. Hansen, and L. J. Maher Jr. 1973 Present and Past Vegetation of the Chuska Mountains, Northwestern New Mexico. Geological Society of

America Bulletin 94:1,155-1,180. Wright, M. K. 1993 Simulated Use of Maize Grinding Tools from Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 58:345-355. Yaeger, J., and M. A. Canuto 2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archaeology ofCommunities: A New World Perspective, edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 1-15. Routledge, London. Zihlman,A. 1997 The Paleolithic Glass Ceiling: Women in Human Evolution. In Women in Human Evolution, edited by L. D. Hager, pp. 91-113. Routledge, London.

Contributors

Karen R. Adams, Ph.D., is director of environmental archaeology and resident archaeobotanist at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. She is also director of environmental studies for the Gila River Indian community and an archaeobotanical consultant for many groups in the American Southwest and northern Mexico. Michael A. Adler, Ph.D., is an associate professor of anthropology at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, and a research associate at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Vandy E. Bowyer is a Ph.D. candidate in anthropology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, and a former archaeobotanical analyst at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Bruce A. Bradley, Ph.D., is a consulting archaeologist, a research associate at the Carnegie Museum, and a former senior research archaeologist at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Jeffrey S. Dean, Ph.D., is a professor of dendrochronology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and a curator of archaeology at the Arizona State Museum, Tucson. Jonathan C. Driver, Ph.D., is dean of graduate studies and a professor of archaeology at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Donna M. Glowacki is a Ph.D. candidate in anthropology at Arizona State University, Tempe, and a research associate at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Michelle Hegmon, Ph.D., is an associate professor of anthropology at Arizona State University, Tempe, and a research associate at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Kristin A. Kuckelman, M.A., is a senior research archaeologist at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 335

336

CONTRIBUTORS

William D. Lipe, Ph.D., is professor emeritus, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, and a research associate and member of the Board of Trustees at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Scott G. Ortman, M.A., is director of the research laboratory at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Christopher Pierce, Ph.D., is the database and research program manager at the Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, and the former material culture specialist at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Ian Thompson, B.A. The late Ian Thompson was a former executive director and director of research at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Margaret M. Thurs, B.A., is the public awareness coordinator for The Wisconsin Coalition against Sexual Assault, Madison, and a former laboratory research archaeologist at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Carla R. Van West, Ph.D., is a senior principal investigator at Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona, and a research associate at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Mark D. Varien, Ph.D., is the director of research at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Richard H. Wilshusen, Ph.D., is a research associate at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Index

abandonment: process of at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 69-71; and Upper Sand Canyon community, 71; use of term, 106. See also migration Abbott, D. R., 266 Adams, E. Charles, 21-22, 26, 41, 42 Adams, Karen R., 43, 127 Adler, MichaelA., 17, 21, 104, 110, 111-12, 214, 220, 264, 266, 268, 269,272,276,278 agency: and concepts of community, 269, 271; and Crow Canyon Center research, 14-15; and modeling of mobility as social process, 183; and social power, 205 aggregation: environmental conditions and social organization, 97-98; and evidence of warfare, 234-35, 247-48; and population estimates, 106, 109, 118; and settlement history in central Mesa Verde region, 209, 211-12, 231; site clusters and modes of, 220. See also settlement patterns agriculture: and Anasazi, 145; and elevation effects, 173; food stress and consumption of by-products of, 136-37; and paleoenvironmental records, 94-95, 96, 97; and population densities, 115-16, 120n1, 216; and soil quality, 174. See also plant remains; subsistence; turkeys; Zea mays Albert Porter Preserve, 12, 278 Alkali Ridge cluster, 206[, 216, 217 analytical approach, to concept of community, 263 analytical scale, and Crow Canyon Center research, 18-20 Anasazi: and influence in northern San Juan region, 145; and model of behavioral adaptation to environmental variability,82 Angstadt-Leo, E. A., 147 Ansell Hall site, 273 anthropophagy, and evidence for warfare, 244 arable land, 115-16, 12on1, 174. See also agriculture; landtenure systems Archaeological Conservancy, 6 archaeology: and analysis of social power, 203-204; and concepts of community, 263-79; and evidence for warfare, 234; and theory of community organization, 38. See also Crow Canyon Archaeological Center; public archaeology; Southwest architecture: household movement and community persistence' 168-71; and evidence for warfare, 236-37; identity and styles of, 276-77; of later aggregated communities in central Mesa Verde region, 36-37; and pinyon/juniper

woodland, 139-40; and population estimates, 107-108, 215; and Sand Canyon Pueblo as planned community center, 48, 53-65, 73-74; Sand Canyon Pueblo and social power, 224-27; and settlement history of central Mesa Verde region, 207, 209. See also construction sequences; public architecture; roof timbers; towers; walls Architecture ofSocial Integration, The (Lipe & Hegmon, 1989),17 arrow points, 240-41. See also projectile points Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush), 124, 139, 141-42 artiodactyl index, 147, 154, 155-57, 160 artistic representations, of warfare, 242-43. See also petroglyphs axes, 47, 241 Awatovi Pueblo, 239,240, 243 Aztec Ruin, 217 Badger House, 154 Ballantine, Richard, 3 Barth, F., 13 base molds, for pottery, 192 Basketmaker II, and warfare- related scalping, 242 Basketmaker III, and faunal variation, 157 basketry shields, 241 Battleship Rock cluster, 206f Bauer, D., 30 Beezley, J. A., 154 Berger, Edward, 3 Bernardini, W., 278 bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis), 151 Billman, B. R., 92 Binford, L. R., 165 biological evidence, of local and nonlocal populations in communities, 35 birds, and feathers, 229. See also turkeys bison,147. See also artiodactyl index Blanton, R. E., 13, 204-205 Blau, P. M., 13 Blinman, E., 67, 102 blocks, of rooms at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 41-42, 4St, 65. See also D-shaped buildings boundaries, and concepts of community, 272-75 Bowyer, Vandy E., 43, 127

337

INDEX

Boyer, A., 21-22 Bradley, Bruce A., 17, 21, 26,37,41,42,43,44,49,71,73,224, 225,226,227 Bryan, K., 81, 84 buffer zones, as evidence for warfare, 237-38 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 5-6 burials: and indications of social power, 229-30; of turkeys, 154. See also human remains burned structures, as evidence of warfare, 238-40, 246 Burns, B. T., 85, 91 calendar, agricultural, 61 canids, and faunal assemblages, 158 Cannonball Ruin, 236 Canuto, M. A., 265, 267-68 canyon environment: and aggregation in Pueblo III period, 212; canyon-rim sites as evidence for warfare, 236; and kiva suites in canyon-rim villages, 75 carnivores and carnivore index, 158, 160 Casa Negra, 270, 279n1 Castle Rock Pueblo: ceramics and evidence for communal feasting, 68; ceramics and community interaction, 195, 197-98,200; Crow Canyon Center and excavation of, 8, 9; and excavation reports, 15; and faunal assemblages, 154; plan map of, 235j; and site clusters, 186; and site description, 125; site distance from Sand Canyon Pueblo, 69f, social power and wealth items at, 228; warfare and end of occupation at, 212, 229-30, 231, 236, 237, 238, 239-40, 241, 242,243-44,245,246-47,249,251 catchments: and community centers, 175-79; and population estimates, 216 Catherine's Site, 195 Cedar Mesa, 35 Center for American Archaeology (CAA), 3-4 Central Mesa Verde region: ceramics and measures of community interaction in, 185-202; «community concept" and interpretation of ancestral Pueblo sites in, 25-39; Crow Canyon Archaeological Center research in, 3-20; estimates of population of in Pueblo III period, 101-20; and household residential mobility, 166; and paleoenvironmental reconstructions, 84-98; and Sand Canyon Pueblo as community center, 41-78; sedentism/mobility and population movements in, 163-84; and social power, 203-32; and warfare in thirteenth century, 233-53. See also Sand Canyon locality ceramics: Chuskan in Ute Mountain area, 35-36; and Kayenta tradition, 217; and measures of community interaction, 185-202; and occupational history of Sand Canyon Pueblo, 49, 51t, 52; and relative artifact proportions at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 46f, 47; serving bowls and evidence for communal feasting at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 65-68, 76, 230; social identity and styles of, 276; social power and exotic, 229; and white ware bowls from Sand Canyon locality sites, 69!

ceremonial centers, and residential villages of ancestral Puebloan people, 44 Chaco Archaeological Project, 228 Chaco culture: and architecture of Sand Canyon Pueblo, 73; community centers in Mesa Verde area and interaction with, 177; drought and end of ritual system, 279n4; and great houses in northern San Juan region, 273, 276; and Pueblo IV period, 251; and tool assemblages compared to Sand Canyon Pueblo, 44, 46-48; turquoise and shell artifacts, 228-29 Chandler, S. M., 102, 109 Chapin Mesa, 27, 28, 110, 171, 207! charcoal specimens, and plant remains, 127, 130-31t, 132 Chetro Ketl, 273 Chimney Rock district, 27 Chisholm, M., 175 Chrysothamnus nauseosus (rabbitbrush), 124, 139, 141-42 Chuskan ceramics, 35-36 Cliff Palace, 242 climate: and paleoenvironmental reconstructions, 84-92; and settlement history of central Mesa Verde region, 212-13; and warfare, 251. See also droughts; environment Colorado Plateau, culture history of, 81 Communities through Time: Migration, Cooperation, and Conflict (research project), 12 community: archaeological research and concepts of, 25-39, 263-79; ceramics and measurements of interaction in, 185-202; Crow Canyon Center and research on organization of, 12, 13-14, 19-20; environmental conditions and social organization of, 97-98; household movement and persistence of, 168-71; and interpretation of archaeological record at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 71-77; regional social landscape and persistence of, 171-84 community centers: Crow Canyon Center and study of, 10-11; identification of persistent, 181-82; polygons and catchments, 175-79; and population estimates, 109, 117-19, 215-16; public architecture and social power, 224; Sand Canyon Pueblo as planned, 48-65, 74-77; and settlement patterns in Pueblo III period, 216-17. See also site clusters complexity theory, 270 compositional analyses, of pottery, 187, 189-91, 198 conservation archaeology, 7 construction sequences, at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 48-49. See also roof timbers container metaphors, and Sand Canyon Pueblo as planned community center, 74-77 copresence, and concept of community, 267 corporate groups: and Crow Canyon Center research, 19; and social organization of household and community, 33-34, 38-39; and social power, 204-205, 232 cost-equivalent distances, between community centers, 179-81 cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus), 146-47,15°,151,153,157 Cottonwood Wash cluster, 207f, 217

INDEX

Cow Canyon Pueblo) 207[, 236 Creamer) W.) 234) 250-51 cross-cultural research: ceramics and communal feasting) 68; and Crow Canyon Center) 17; and neoevolutionary approach to social power) 204; population size and regional integration) 214; on warfare) 233) 237) 251 Crow Canyon Archaeological Center: history of) 3-6; and public archaeology) 6-9; and research issues) 9-20; and understanding of effects of environmental variability) 81 Cucurbita (squash) 133) 140 culture history) of Colorado Plateau) 81 Dean) Jeffrey S.) 21) 82) 84) 116) 119) 123) 212-13 deer) 147) 151) 153) 158) 160. See also artiodactyl index demographic cycles) and general trends in population growth and decline) 105-107. See also migration; mobility; population; sedentism dendroclimatic reconstructions) 84-85 depopulation) use of term) 106. See also migration descriptive knowledge) and Crow Canyon Center) 15 diet: and evidence for foot shortages in Sand Canyon locality) 127-38) 140; maize as staple ofAnasazi) 145. See also agriculture; feasting; food digital elevation model (DEM) and regional social landscape) 171) 172f, 173 dimensional approach) to study of community organization and complexity) 13-14 DoeIle) W. H.) 119) 252 Dolores Archaeological Program (DAP) 9 Dolores River region: fuel woods and landscape alterations) 139; and large-scale population movements) 35; and population estimates) 112-13) 114t) 115) 119 Douglass)A. E.) 81 Driver) Jonathan C.) 12) 16) 17) 22) 43) 68 droughts: and end of Chaco ritual system) 279n4; and paleoenvironmental reconstructions) 87) 88) 89) 95; and settlement history of northern San Juan area) 209; and warfare) 251. See also climate; environment D-shaped buildings: and aggregation in Pueblo III period) 212; and Sand Canyon Pueblo) 48) 55-62) 70) 73) 75; and social power in Pueblo III period) 221) 223) 224) 225) 226. See also multiwalled structures dual-process approach) to social power) 204-205 Duckfoot site: ceramics and household residential mobility) 167; and Crow Canyon Center research) 7) 9) 17 Duff)A. I.) 109) 118-19) 119-20) 159 Duncan) Raymond) 4 Earle) T.) 13 ecological constraints) and population densities) 104-105. See also environment Eddy) F. W.) 27 elk (Cervus elaphus) 147) 151. See also artiodactyl index empirical research) and Crow Canyon Center) 15

339

environment: and archaeological record) 83-92; characterization of variability) 82-83; and culture history of Colorado Plateau) 81; and faunal variation) 160; food stress and human impact on) 138-40) 141; model of behavioral adaptation to) 82; and paleoenvironmental reconstructions) 84-98; and residential mobility) 172-74; settlement patterns) mobility) and subsistence economy) 165; and zones in Sand Canyon locality) 123-24. See also canyon environment; climate; droughts; ecological constraints; habitats; landscape Escalante site) 154 ethnography: and hunger buffering mechanisms) 124; sunwatching and ceremonial leadership in ancestral and historic pueblos) 61 excavation reports) and Crow Canyon Center) 15 exotic materials) and wealth items) 227-29 extensifiers) and residential mobility) 184 Ezzo) J. A.) 35 faunal assemblages: and evidence for communal feasting at Sand Canyon Pueblo) 68; and relative artifact proportions at Sand Canyon Pueblo) 46f, 47) 227; variation and change at Pueblo III sites in Sand Canyon locality) 143-60 feasting) evidence for communal at Sand Canyon Pueblo) 65-69)76)230 Feinman) G. M.) 204-205) 232 Ferguson) R. B.) 233-34 Fetterman) J.) 102) 109) 111) 112 Fewkes) Jesse Walter) 41 Fish) S. K.) 249 food: and archaebotanical evidence for shortages of in Sand Canyon locality) 124) 127-38; changes in preparation of as evidence for food stress) 137-38; storage of and annual variation in food supply) 92; storage of as evidence for social power) 230) 231. See also agriculture; diet; feasting; subsistence Force) E. R.) 92 Fort Lewis College) 6 Four Corners area) and Sand Canyon locality) 41 fuel-wood resources) 138-40) 141-42 Giddens) A.) 267) 269 Gilpin) D.) 266 Glowacki) Donna. M.) 43 Goodman Point Pueblo: and "community concept;) 26-27) 32-37) 38-39; household movement and community persistence) 168-71; public architecture and social power) 223; and site clusters) 186-87) 216-17; and warfare) 236 Gramineae (grass) family) 135 Grasshopper region (Arizona) 35 great houses) Chacoan: as expression of identity) 276; and social power) 222) 273-74. See also public architecture great kivas: and construction sequence at Sand Canyon Pueblo) 57t; residential mobility and community centers)

INDEX

340 177; and Sand Canyon Pueblo as planned community center, 62-64,76; and settlement history of central Mesa Verde region, 209, 211, 212; and social power, 221, 222-23, 225. See also kivas Great Sage Plain, and population estimates, 106, 107, 110, 111-12, 114t, 119, 120n1 Green Lizard Hamlet, 8,9,195 Grissino-Mayer, H. D., 92 Haas, J., 234, 250-51, 252-53 habitats, and wild plant resource base, 135-36. See also environment Hack, J. T., 86-87 Harrington, J. P., 74 Harry, K. G., 266 Hayes, Alden C., 102, 109-10, 110-11 Hedley Site Complex: Crow Canyon Center and test excavations, 8, 11-12; enclosing walls and construction sequence, 53; and settlement pattern structure, 217; and warfare, 236 Hegmon, Michelle, 18, 23 high frequency environmental variables, 83 history, Native American, 4. See also culture history; oral history; settlement history Hohokam area, and spatial scales of communities, 265, 267 Holmes, W. H., 101 Honeycutt, L., 102, 109, 111, 112 Hopi and Hopi language: and axes as weapons and tools, 241; and community concept, 73; and oral history on Utes, 261; and oral history on warfare, 251 households: Crown Canyon Center and research on organization of, 12-13, 19; and residential mobility, 166-68, 275; and social organization of community, 33-34 Hovenweep site cluster, 236-37, 276. See also Lower Hovenweep cluster; Upper Hovenweep cluster Hovezak, M. J., 140 Howell, W. K., 92 Hoy House, 154 Huber, E. K., 224, 226 Huckleberry, G. A., 92 human remains: Castle Rock Pueblo and evidence for warfare, 212,229-30,231,236,237,238,239-40,241, 242,24344,245,246-47,249,251; chemical analyses of in central Mesa Verde region, 35; physical indications and postmortem neglect as evidence of warfare, 240, 243-44, 24445; Sand Canyon Pueblo and evidence for violence, 68-69, 70-71. See also burials hunter-gatherers, and mobility studies, 164-65 identification procedures, and faunal assemblages, 151 identity: and connection between community and place, 278; material culture style as expression of, 275-76; and shared images of community, 72 instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) , 187, 190-91,196-98, 199t, 200, 201

instrumental studies, and Crow Canyon Center, 16 integrated paleoenvironmental reconstructions, 92-95 intellectual context, of research at Crow Canyon Center, 12-15 intensifiers, and residential mobility, 184 jackrabbits (Lepus), 146-47, 151, 153, 157, 158 Jackson, William Henry, 245 Johnson, G. A., 13, 219 Judge, W. J., 3, 279n4 judicial systems, and community organization, 31 Juniperus osteosperma (juniper), 124, 139-40, 141-42 Karlstrom, T. N. v., 92 Kayenta region, and evidence for warfare, 237, 242 Kayenta tradition pottery, 217 Keeley, L. H., 237, 241, 248, 250, 252 Kelley, J. P., 222 Kelly, R. L., 163, 164, 165 KenzIe, S. C., 43 Kidder,A. v., 101 kilns, pottery, 189 kinship, and container metaphors of community, 76 kivas: and oral history, 259-60; and Sand Canyon Pueblo as community center, 48,49,54,58-62,70,75-76; and settlement history of central Mesa Verde region, 207, 209; social power and residential occupation of, 225, 226. See also great kivas Kohler, T. A., 139, 248 Kolb, M. J., 25, 265, 279n3 Kosse, K., 213, 214 Kuckelman, Kristin A., 12, 16, 18, 23, 43, 71, 212 !Kung, and social organization, 272-73 labor: access to resources and residential mobility, 174; and construction of great houses, 273 Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research (Arizona), 171 Lagenaria (gourds), 140 lagomorph index, 146, 155-57 Lancaster Ruin, 37 landscape: community persistence and regional social, 171-84; and population densities, 108-109, 113-16. See also environment land-tenure systems: residential mobility and access to resources, 174; and role of community, 30-31, 183, 271 Largo-Gallina sites, 238, 239 LeBlanc, S. A., 234, 240 Lee, R. B., 273 Lekson, S. H., 273 Leonard, R. D., 27, 265, 266 Lester's Site, 195 Lightfoot, K. G., 217-18 Lightfoot, R. R., 12, 13, 269 Linton, R., 28, 245

INDEX

Lion House, 154 Lipe, William D., 3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17-18, 22-23, 43, 54, 55, 102, 119,237,271-72 lithic assemblages. See tools; weapons local systems, and multisite communities, 266 Long House site, 63, 187, 200 Lookout House, 195 lookouts, as evidence for warfare, 237 loopholes, in walls, 237 Lower Hovenweep cluster, 207f Lower Squaw Canyon cluster, 207f low frequency environmental variables, 83 Lowry cluster, 206f macrofossils, 127 Mad Dog Tower, 167, 190, 195 Mahoney, N. M., 20, 266, 274, 279n3, 279n5 manufacture, direct indicators of pottery, 187,188-89, 192-94,198. See also production Marana community (Arizona), 266 Marxist theory, and social constructs, 270 material culture, style of as expression of identity, 275-76 Matthews, M. H., 139 mauls, and tool assemblage at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 47 McNitt, E, 243 membership, of community, 32-37,267 Mesa Verde. See Central Mesa Verde region Mesa Verde Black-on-white ceramics, 189-91, 194-98, 276 Mesa Verde Corrugated jars, 189-91, 194-98 metaphors, and images of community, 72-73, 74-77 middle-range research, and Crow Canyon Center, 16-17 migration: architecture and settlement planning following, 232; conceptualization of as process, 271-72; and debate on depopulation of Sand Canyon locality in thirteenth century, 123, 145, 185-86, 213; and environmental conditions in Sand Canyon locality, 98, 124, 142; faunal data and evidence for in Pueblo III period, 159-60; and late Pueblo I period, 106-107; as long-term process in central Mesa Verde region, 183-84; and oral history, 260-61; and population estimates for Pueblo III period, 119; use of term, 106; and warfare, 250, 252 Mills, B., 43 Mindeleff, v., 33 Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR), 191 Mitchell Springs site, 154 mobility: households and residential, 166-68, 275; modeling of as social process, 183; regional social landscape and community persistence, 171-84; theoretical and conceptual framework for study of, 164-66 Mockingbird Mesa, 111, 115 «modeling periods;' and phase names, 150 modified sherds, of pottery, 192 Morris, E. H., 243 Mug House, 187, 200

341 Muir, R. J., 17, 68, 143, 226, 227 multiwalled structures: and aggregation in Pueblo III period, 212; as evidence for warfare, 236; and social power in Pueblo III period, 221. See also D-shaped buildings Munro, N. D., 137 Murdock, G. P., 28, 267 Mustoe site, 154 National Park Service, 6 Native Americans: and Crow Canyon Center, 4, 5; perspectives of on ancestral Puebloan sites, 257-62; and preservation of archaeological sites, 8. See also Hopi and Hopi language; oral history; Pima; Tewa and Tewa language; Utes; Zuni naturalization, and social constructs, 269-70 neoevolutionary theory, and social power, 203-204 Netting, R. M., 13 network!exclusionary mode, of social power, 204-205, 232 New Fire House site, 63 Nisbet, R. A., 28 Nordenskiold, G., 101, 243 Northwestern University, 3

Opuntia (prickly pear), 135, 136, 140 oral history: and land use in Sand Canyon locality, 9; and perspectives on ancestral Puebloan sites, 257-62; and warfare, 239, 243, 246-47, 251 Orcutt, J. D., 119 ornaments, and social power, 227-29 Ortiz, Alfonso, 74 Ortman, Scott G., 11, 17, 21,37,43,73,200,224,225,226,227 paleoenvironmental reconstructions, 84-98 Pecos system, and phase names, 150 peer-polity interactions, 218 Petersen, K. L., 85, 86, 87, 92 petroglyphs: and evidence for warfare, 242-43; and kivas at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 54 phase names, and Pecos system, 150 Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean), 135, 140 Phillips, D. A., 228 Physalis longifolia (groundcherry), 135, 140 physiography, community centers and polygon or catchment boundaries, 178 Pierce, Christopher, 22, 43 Pima, 241 Pinus edulis (pinyon), 124, 139-40, 141-42 pinyon/juniper woodland, 124, 138-40, 141-42 plant-part ubiquity, 128-29t, 132, 133-35 plant remains, recovery of from sites in Sand Canyon locality, 123-42. See also agriculture plazas: and aggregation in Pueblo III period, 212; and Sand Canyon Pueblo as planned community center, 48, 63, 64-65, 75; and social power, 223, 225

342

Plog, E, 13 political organization, evidence for hierarchical at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 77. See also judicial systems; social power pollen, and paleoenvironmental reconstructions, 84 polygons, and community centers, 175-79 population: of ancestral Pueblo communities, 32-33; and effects of warfare, 248-49, 251; estimates for central Mesa Verde region, 101-20; and environmental conditions, 96, 97, 98; faunal assemblages and evidence for expansion of, 146, 158; growth of in Sand Canyon locality, 124; and setdement history in central Mesa Verde region, 209, 213-17, 230. See also aggregation; migration; mobility; sedentism pot scrapers, 192 Potter, J. M., 275 Powell, John Wesley, 245 power. See social power preservation, of archaeological resources, 8 Preucel, R. W., 268 principal components analysis (PCA), 191, 198[ production, and mobility as social process, 183. See also manufacture projectile points, 240-41, 243 pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), 151 Prudden, T. M., 207 public archaeology, and Crow Canyon Center, 6-9 public architecture, social power and types or distribution of, 220-24, 230, 231. See also great houses; great kivas; plazas Pueblo I: ceramics and temper analysis, 199; and faunal variation, 157; and population estimates, 105, 106-107, 116, 118 Pueblo II: ceramics and temper analysis, 199; and faunal variation, 157; and population estimates, 116, 118, 120n2 Pueblo III: ceramics and measurement of community interaction during, 185-202; and faunal assemblages from Sand Canyon locality sites, 143-60; fuel woods and pinyon/juniper woodland, 139; and population estimates, 105-106,116-17,118-19,120 Pueblo IV, and evidence for warfare and violence, 239, 251-52 Pueblo Alto, 44, 46-48 "Pueblo Cultures in Transition: A.D. 1150-1350 in the American Southwest" (conference, 1990), 10 Pueblo Indians, 257-61. See also Hopi; oral history; Zuni Purcell, D. E., 266 rabbits. See cottontail rabbits; jackrabbits; lagomorph index rank-size analysis, 219-20 raw materials, for pottery, 189, 193, 198-99 recovery methods, and faunal assemblages, 151 Reed, E. K., 212 regional integration, and population size, 213 reification, and social constructs, 269 Renfrew, A. C., 218 residential community: and concepts of community, 27, 274; and Sand Canyon Pueblo, 44-48 resources: access to and community organization, 31; access

INDEX

to and residential mobility, 174; food stress and changes in diversity, 132, 133t. See also agriculture; subsistence Rice, G. E., 234, 240, 241 risk-buffering organizations, communities as, 29-31 ritual: and communal feasting at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 67; decision making and scale of, 279n6; and Sand Canyon Pueblo as community center, 26; structure burning and closure of sites, 239-40; and warfare, 249. See also kivas roads, and Pueblo III community centers, 222 Robinson, W. J., 84 rock art. See petroglyphs rodents, and faunal assemblages, 152 Rohn, A. H., 27, 28, 102, 119, 213, 214 roofs: timbers of as evidence of community persistence, 168-71; warfare and burning of, 239. See also architecture; construction sequences Rose, M. R., 84 Ruin Canyon cluster, 207[ Saddlehorn Hamlet, 69[,195,201 Salmon Ruin, 238, 239 Sand Canyon Archaeological Project (SCAP), 8, 9-10, 15, 20, 26,29,39,166-68,170

Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, The (Lipe, ed. 1992), 20

Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing, The (Varien, ed. 1999), 20 Sand Canyon locality: and Crow Canyon Center research, 19; and distribution of white ware bowls, 69f, evidence for warfare in thirteenth century, 233-53; food and fuel use in Pueblo III period, 123-42; and Four Corners area, 4[; locations of selected sites in, sf, 206[; and multihousehold corporate groupings, 33-34; and paleoenvironmental reconstructions, 95-98; and population estimates, 112t, 115; and social power, 224-30. See also Central Mesa Verde region; San Juan Basin Sand Canyon Pueblo: abandonment of, 69-71; ceramics and community interaction, 195, 197, 200-201; and communal feasting, 65-69; and concepts of community, 26-27, 32-37, 38-39, 270-71; Crow Canyon Center and excavation of, 8, 9; and excavation report, 15; and faunal assemblages, 154; history of excavation at, 41-44; household movement and community persistence, 168-71; and interpretation of archaeological record, 71-77; Native American perspectives on, 257-62; as planned community center, 48-65; plant remains and evidence for food stress, 132, 133, 135, 137, 13839; as residential village, 44-48; and site clusters, 186; and site description, 125; social power and architecture of, 224-27; social power and burials, 230; social power and wealth items, 228; and warfare, 236, 237, 238-39, 240, 241, 242,243-44 San Juan Basin: and faunal assemblages from Pueblo III period, 143-60; and population movements, 35. See also Sand Canyon locality Santa Clara Pueblo, 74

INDEX

scalping, and evidence of warfare, 242 Schaafsma, P., 245 Schiffer, M. B., 12 Schlanger, S. H., 102, 107, 109, 112-13, 170 seasonal movement, and studies of mobility, 164 secondary refuse, and plant remains, 125 sedentism, theoretical and conceptual framework for study of, 164-66 settlement history, of Pueblo II and III periods in central Mesa Verde region, 206-13 settlement patterns: ceramics and community interaction, 202; and communities in central Mesa Verde region, 2728; and Crow Canyon Center research, 14, 18, 19; and site clusters in central Mesa Verde region, 27; structure of in Pueblo III period, 217-20. See also aggregation; community centers; mobility; site clusters shell artifacts, 228-29 shield bearers, in rock art, 242 Shields Pueblo, 8, 12, 278, 279n2 shock weapons, 241-42, 246 Shore, C., 277 short-term sedentism, 164, 182 signaling stations, 237 Sikyatki Pueblo, 239, 243 site clusters: distribution of in central Mesa Verde region, 206f, 207[; identification of in Sand Canyon locality, 186-87; and rank-size analysis, 219-20; and settlement patterns in central Mesa Verde region, 27, 208-209t, 210nt, 216-17. See also community centers site formation processes, and Crow Canyon Center research, 16 skeletal analysis. See burials; human remains Sleeping Ute Mountain, 261-62 Snead, J. E., 25,265, 279n3 Snider's Well site, 245 social archaeology, and Crow Canyon Center research, 17-1 8

social constructs, and concepts of community, 268-72 social dimensions, of community, 263-65 social formatting, and population densities, 104-105 social power: and perspectives from Sand Canyon locality, 224-30; regional population and community size, 213-17; and structure of settlement patterns, 217-20; theoretical approaches to analysis of, 203-206; types and distribution of public architecture, 220-24 social scale: and concepts of community, 272-75; and Crow Canyon Center research, 19-20 social organization, and environmental conditions, 96. See also community; households social theory: and concepts of community, 264, 277; and Crow Canyon Center research, 14-15 soil types: agriculture and quality of, 174; and population densities, 113-14, 120n1 solar and lunar cycles, and orientation of ancestral Puebloan buildings, 61

343

Southwest: debate on population levels and impact of migration, 101-102; debate over population movements in, 163; reevaluation of role of warfare in, 14, 18 Southwest Paleoclimate Project, 85-92 spatial scales: and concepts of community, 28-29,32-37, 265-67; and Crow Canyon Center research, 19, 20; and environmental variability, 82; and faunal assemblages, 151; settlement patterns and studies of mobility, 165-66 Spielmann, K. A., 147 Stanton's Site, 195, 201 starvation, and plant remains from Sand Canyon locality, 132-37,141 Stephen, A. M., 241 stewardship, and public archaeology, 7, 8 Stipa hymenoides (rice grass), 135 Stone, G. D., 184 street-oriented settlements, and architecture of later period in central Mesa Verde region, 36-37 Struever, Stuart, 4 subsistence: environmental conditions and changes in technology, 97; environment and residential mobility, 172-74; faunal variation and population increases, 158, 160; settlement patterns and mobility, 165. See also agriculture; resources supra-annual residential mobility, 164, 182 sustainable communities, 266 Swentzell, Rina, 74 Szuter, C. R., 152 temper analysis, of pottery, 190, 194-95, 199-201 temporal scales: and Crow Canyon Center research, 18-19; and environmental variability, 83; and faunal assemblages, 151 Tewa and Tewa language, 76, 74 thermal features, and plant remains, 125, 127, 132-33, 139, 140-41 Thomas, David Hurst, 7 Thompson, Ian, 3, 4, 23, 25,74, 279 threshold property, and sedentism, 165 Tigray (Ethiopia), 30 Titiev, M., 241 tools: and corn-grinding, 47; and pottery manufacture, 188-89,192; ratios of stone and bone categories at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 46[, 47. See also weapons towers: as evidence of warfare, 212, 236-37; and social power, 222,226,227 tree-ring dating: and abandonment of Sand Canyon Pueblo, 69; and construction sequences at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 49, 50t, 52-53, 55, 57t, 63; and paleoenvironmental reconstructions, 84, 85-92; salvage and reuse of roof timbers, 170; and Upper Sand Canyon community, 71 trophy taking, and evidence of warfare, 242 Troy's Tower, 167, 190 Tsegi Orange Ware, 229 tunnels, as evidence of warfare, 237

INDEX

344 turkeys and turkey index (Meleagris gallopavo) , 124, 137, 141, 143,147,151-52,153-54,156-57,160 turquoise artifacts, 228-29 ubiquity, and faunal assemblages, 152. See also plant-part ubiquity unfired pottery, 192-93 unit pueblos: and architectural features of ancestral Puebloan sites in central Mesa Verde region, 41; and ((community concept:' 73; and settlement history of central Mesa Verde region, 207; and sites in Sand Canyon locality, 125 Upper Hovenweep cluster, 206f, 207f Upper Sand Canyon community, and Sand Canyon Pueblo, 43,71-77 Upper Squaw Canyon cluster, 207f Ute Mountain area: and large-scale population movements, 35-36, 261-62; Ute and Puebloan ancestral sites in, 262 Utes, 245,257,261-62 Van West, Carla R., 16, 18,21,85,90-91,102,110,111, 120n1, 123, 206,212-13,248 Varien, Mark D., 12, 13, 14, 16-17, 18, 19-20, 22,34-35,43, 102, 108,116,2°5,214,216,220,222,224,235,237,238,251,263, 264,268,269,271,272,275,278,279n1 vegetation. See plant remains Village Mapping Project (VMP), 11-12 violence, and end of occupation at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 70-71. See also warfare Wallace, H. D., 252 walls: and aggregation in Pueblo III period, 212; and Chacoan influence at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 73; and construction sequence at Hedley Main Ruin, 53; as evidence for violence and warfare, 70, 236; and social power, 226. See also multiwalled structures war clubs, 241-42 warfare: and aggregation in Pueblo III period, 212, 231; Crow Canyon Center research and reevaluation of role in

Southwest, 14, 18; and end of occupation at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 71; evidence for in Sand Canyon locality of thirteenth century, 233-53; and settlement pattern structure, 217. See also Castle Rock Pueblo; violence warrior societies, 249 water sources, and evidence for warfare, 236 wealth items, and social power, 227-29 weapons, as evidence for warfare, 240-42, 246, 248 ((weed" species, of plants, 138 Wetherill Mesa: ceramics and community interaction, 201; and population estimates, 110, illt, 115; and site clusters, 207f; and tree-ring dating of construction materials, 171 White, T. D., 244 White Mountain Red Ware, 229 Wiessner, P., 165 Wilcox, D. R., 234, 250, 252-53 Wilk, R. R., 13 Wills, W. H., 27, 265, 266 Wilshusen, Richard H., 11, 17, 21, 102, 109, 117, 118-19, 119-20, 159, 170, 224 Winkler, Bill, 3 Witt Loam series, 113-14, 115, 120n1 Wolf, Eric R., 269 Woodbury, R. B., 241 Woods Canyon Pueblo: Crow Canyon Center and test excavations' 8, 11-12; and excavation reports, 15; and faunal assemblages, 154 Yaeger, J., 265, 267-68 Yellow Jacket Pueblo: architecture of, 37; Crow Canyon Center and test excavations, 8, 11-12; and excavation reports, 15; plan map of, 36f; and population estimates, 215-16; public architecture and social power, 222, 223; and site clusters, 207[, 216-17; and warfare, 236, 237 Yucca House, 223

Zea mays (maize), 133-35, 136-37, 137-38, 140, 141, 145. See also agriculture zooarchaeological studies. See faunal assemblages